First impressions

[Nick Thomadis]

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

That is on schedule!

[RyTide]

The concept of your game looks excellent.  I hope you will continue with other Civil War battles.  It seems that the game engine also would lend itself to battles of the American Revolution.

[David Fair]

Map looks great.  

 

Hopefully this will be a game with a little "fog" in the "fog of war".  

 

It's annoying when the Army Commander knows the precise strength, ammunition supply, and moral of every unit in the Army at all times.  One key historical leadership metric was understanding what troops were capable of achieving given their current state.  Smoke, confusion, exhaustion, and supply were critical leadership intuitions rather than data points for issuing orders.  It would be refreshing to play a game where the outcome wasn't predetermined by how much minutia I have about my troop's state.  Local commanders knew which troops were fresh and which had been on the line and rotated troop orders according to their fatigue, experience, and reputation.  

 

I'd like a leadership gut vs. algorithm gaming experience.

 

In almost every Civil War memoir leaders, when pressed to hold or attack replied, "we'll try".  Famously after Pickett's Charge Lee went out to greet his shredded regiments apologizing for believing they could do the impossible.  Longstreet knew better, and on that day for that charge, Longstreet had a deeper understanding and perspective on the fog of war in that valley.  Lee's inability to grasp the fog of war was masked by his desire to win the war, or at least win the support of England/France so the South could get out of the Civil War as an independent nation.

[admin]

Map looks great.  

 

Hopefully this will be a game with a little "fog" in the "fog of war".  

 

 

 

Hello David

We are discussing fog of war internally. Heated discussions sometimes.

[Darkhead999]

I am addicted to RTS gaming so I like to give suggestions :3 

 

First of all the FOW( Fog of War). I like every unit to have there own visibility. Most likely the cavalry have more visibility range from other units. Soldiers have normal visibility. Artillery have a low visibility. Due to this visibility range, commanders need to become careful to ambushes and others. 

 

Next is I like to add day and night engine. Most of the time, day light have a normal visibility to the units but in night units have a small visibility range because it is night . Next is morale to the units. In night time most of the soldiers, want to sleep so there a bit some morale lose when the night falls. In movement of the units, there is a bit decreased of the movement during the night when you are nearing the enemy but you can have a normal movement when you are in the base. Of course you didn't want the enemy to know you where here. 

 

Next is the use of spies. When you captured a unit of an enemy, you can give an option to have a some information about the enemy. Use of spies, the general can use spies in battle. Also the double agent is also considered your spy. If you captured a spy, you can use him/her to spy you enemies instead or bribe them with money. :3 

 

Weather. The weather theme is good to the game. For example, you are affected by rainy or winter that greatly affects the movement and morale of the units. 

 

Artillery. Artillery have time to before it move/ embark to other places. It is crucial to move immediately for preventing ambush. Also I know that there are types of ammunition in artillery a normal and scattered type. Scattered type where many small balls is exploded to attack a large group of infantry from the enemy. I watch history channel about this so I know it is true. Also I like to add that you can capture the enemy artillery to use it for your own consumption :3 

 

Element of supplying. You cannot use the mime bullets when you have not supplied again. The faster the supplies to your unit the better. Supplies affect the units of your army like food that may decrease your morale if you have not enough supplies. You can hijacked you enemy supplies for your own good or secure it to your own to make the enemy starve. 

 

Infantry. I want the infantry to have a bayonet that's all 

 

Cover. I like to have the infantry a small cover in trees. Others I have no issue about that. :3 

 

That's all. Sorry for my bad english. I am not good about it. :3 

 

Good to you guys. I like to play your game . 

 

P.S I like to be like you guys so day to create a game :3 

[Fencible]

I want it!  Now! Will there be scope for campaigns, and perhaps a higher scale operational (that is, pre-battle manoeuvring) scale?

 

Fencible

[Nick Thomadis]

Hi Fencible, we aim for campaign system for later games. This first one will simulate the Battle of Gettysburg in a dynamic short-campaign which is consisted of many local engagements. The battle can expand up to 4 days and can vary infinitely according to random situations and events.

[vonduus]

Hi Nick

 

Just learned about this site from the TWC-forum, so I went to have a look, and now I am registering to follow.

 

 

A comment on campaign vs. tactical battle: The first two TW games came with a Risk-like campaign map. The only function of the turn-based campaign was to provide an excuse for getting to what it was all about, ie. to provide a dynamic link between the real-time tactical battles. And those real time battles were what made me interested in the series, no other video games back then let you command multiple mega-units each consisting of multiple individual units trying to hold their place in a formation. So I was hooked, and I have been hooked to this concept ever since. 

 

What I am trying to say is, that there are quite a few serious and very good grand-strategy campaign games in the world, turn-based as well as real-time; if I want to play hard-core strategy, I have plenty to choose from (Paradox, AGEOD, Matrix etc). But there are not that very many tactical games that focus on serious "big unit action" like the TW series do, or rather did. So what I would do, if I was you, is to focus on the tactics side of things.

 

Campaigns are of course important, because they will provide the individual tactical battles with a higher strategic purpose. Custom battles quickly becomes boring, because there is no strategy involved, so I don't care if my troops survive. In my ideal game, the results of every individual battles should influence the greater whole. What you call "a dynamic short-campaign" seems to me to be a very good solution to this equation. 

 

 

A comment on what makes me play a game again and again: I have played TW games for thousands of hours, more than I have played any other video game, (perhaps except the HOI series from Paradox). Most games I play for a limited period, and then I go on to something else, never to turn back. So why did I stick to TW for so long?

 

One reason, of course, is the mods. When you figured out how to beat vanilla, you could mod the game and spend additional time on figuring out how to beat the mod. 

 

But the main reason, I believe, is that in most other games i figure out at some point how to beat the ai, and from then on I know I can beat this game anytime, and therefore loose interest in the game. Unless there is a mod, and then I figure out how to beat the mod, and then I loose interest. Every campaign in every TW game can be won with the same strategy: After the initial build-up, you just steamroll the world, one size fits all, not very funny. So that's not why I keep coming back for another game.

 

The real time tactical battles in TW are somehow different. I routinely beat the stupid ai, and in most battles I win easily against overwhelming odds. But the important thing is that every so often I actually loose a battle that I should have won. And this, I believe, is what has kept me interested in TW: In spite of more than ten years training, I can still be struck by a sudden fear of loosing a battle. 

 

I saw what you did to the ai in TW, so my expectations are high. I don't care about the graphics, what I want is an AI that keeps me alert and punishes me for being lax. And I really don't care if the ai is cheating, as long as it is not too obvious or unfair to the player. After all, the ai is very stupid compared to the player, so not allowing it to cheat a little is actually unfair to the ai  .

 

Btw, I really like the map graphics, not so sure about the soldiers, though (a bit too clean and cute, perhaps?).  

 

I wish you all the luck in the world.

[Nick Thomadis]

Thank you vonduus for registering to provide your very interesting thoughts and ideas.

 

I really feel you right now. This is how it was for me. I got hooked so much in Total War games because they provided this tactical dynamic feel to the battles that no other game provided. We are aiming exactly to that spot with Ultimate General: Gettysburg.To fullfill the desire for a tactical battle simulator with thousands of soldiers and we are making one step forward with interesting fresh ideas not ever seen yet in another strategy game + support for tablets and smartphones.

Graphics and sounds will be enough for perception of gameplay and atmosphere but most important will be the AI that will be, maybe, one of the best ever for real time strategy games. We have an alpha game build that is currently being played by selected testers and we are getting very encouraging feedback, specifically about the AI. So expect what you hope. You will have a game that will never play the same, against multiple clever AI opponents that use no cheats. Yes, you will lose miserably many times, and you will personally enjoy that. I hope others will not get frustrated when they get their XXX handed to them every single time, until they actually use clever tactics.

[kenichinsfs]

Hi Fencible, we aim for campaign system for later games. This first one will simulate the Battle of Gettysburg in a dynamic short-campaign which is consisted of many local engagements. The battle can expand up to 4 days and can vary infinitely according to random situations and events.

 

You know, that's not a bad idea actually. Depending on what will happen on the battlefield, can change an ending through the end. Even if it exceeds a 3 day limit of the history, it still gives a more enjoyable game. I suggest you'll stick with that idea

 

===Edited Update===

 

> I've researched deeper on the Battle of Gettysburg and learned more about the happenings of this event.. The plan in exceeding 3 days of the war Battle of Gettysburg is actually great idea!

 

> After the three day bloody war in Gettysburg (July 1 - 3), in July 4, it heavily rain during at that time. July 4 should've been a counter attack from the Union. Well, that's what I've learned from other different sites.. Although I'm not quite actually sure on this one.

 

sources: http://www.history.com/topics/battle-of-gettysburg

sources: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/battle-of-gettysburg-150th-ann/14824506

[Myes!]

Thanks for finally putting some in-game screenshots up on the blog! Very excited for this game - here's hoping you will soon release that alpha as Early Access.

 

That said, I have a couple of questions.

 

First of all; will there be scenarios in which you fight alongside friendly AI-commanders?

 

Also; perhaps you could have chosen a different font for the in-game text? No big deal, but something a bit more aesthetically pleasing wouldn't go amiss. *

 

 

 

* Note that I'm not referring to the location-names drawn across the ground, ("Mc PHERSON'S RIDGE", etc.), but rather the unit-names and numbers. ("Reynolds (137)", "US: 20377 Soldiers, 54 Guns", etc.)

[admin]

 

 

 

 

* Note that I'm not referring to the location-names drawn across the ground, ("Mc PHERSON'S RIDGE", etc.), but rather the unit-names and numbers. ("Reynolds (137)", "US: 20377 Soldiers, 54 Guns", etc.)

 

those names are temporary programmer's UI names. will be improved eventually

[Myes!]

Those names are temporary programmer's UI names. will be improved eventually

 

 

Good stuff.

[Battlerager]

Long lurker...and big fan from your TWC Days, Darth.  I've read a lot about the scenario discussions, and people suggesting one grand-battle to command all the units of one of the armies.  There's probably some tech issues with that - similar to what Sid Meier's Gettysburg encountered.

 

Will there be scenarios that cover an entire Day?  Like a Day 1 scenario, the fight from the ridges, thru the town, then to Cemetery Ridge/Culps Hill?  

 

Or perhaps mod support for someone to create a scenario to command all the units for the entire battle?  I've seen that's a routine request...but obviously you want to have a working, functional game (I'm excited for real AI), and we can all dream.

 

Anyways - best of luck to you and the entire development team, this would be a wargame that inspires others, and encourages expansion of this type of genre.  

[knightwire]

 

I would also like to see the ability to replay the battle once finished, from a top down view as such:

 

 

For history gamers (as I am sure many will be drawn to this game), this would be a very welcome addition.  I suppose the map could be represented as it is in Supreme Commander, that kind of top-down view the commander has.  It gives the player a chance to analyze mistakes, missed opportunities and the ability to develop AARs should one be so inclined.  One print screen later and now viewers can follow the battle as if it was an actual historical engagement.  

 

Or time stop moments, such as above.  Or "critical moments" in the battle, where major engagements occurred that shaped the course of the battle.  These decisive moments in review I believe would add much more depth to the playing experience, and would be utilized to great effect.

 

 

 

I wholeheartedly second this above.  The ability to watch a replay, full fidelity or just high level as pictured, is fantastic.  Sid had it yes (and it was awesome), but it's also available in another game I play a lot called Wargame: Airland Battle and it's wonderful.  Especially in multiplayer cases my friends and I love watching an engagement replay and discussing at any particular point what we saw and what we thought the other was doing.  In games with fog of war this is a great addition to learn from your mistakes and see how various tactics or battlefield strategies work or not.  Also if people use this game for competitive play at some point, scouting your opponent is sometimes a part of the gaming process.  Lastly, the ability to put your AARs up on Youtube/Twitch and laude your prowess in various online communities is great PR for the game.

 

Regardless, great project so far.  I'm excited to play and will be looking at your first opportunity to throw my money at you.  

[Myes!]

I would also like to see the ability to replay the battle once finished, from a top down view as such:

 

 

One should be given the option to view the replay with regular visuals, should one so desire.

[ferragus]

Hello,

 

I've been waiting for something like this for a  long time now!

It really sounds we will finally have a real sequel to the Sid Meiers Gettysburg and breakaway's Waterloo NLB

After some big disapointments like the Take Command games, Scourge of War and Histwar, (not to mention the TW games) I am really starting to get hopefull!

 

But there are just some things I would like to ask before beeing really interested:

 

It seems from the screenshots, that there are many units moving without formation in what seems an atack movement! Just like the charges we see in the movies! They just seem to be bunched togheter with no order running forward. Am I suposing correctly?

 

Another thing I can depreend from the same screenshots and from your posts is that you plan to have allot of meele combat. Is this correct? 

 

And for the last question, Do you intend to reproduce the movement of the units in a realistic way? Will they be marching and changing formation according to the drill regulations? I know that officers in the Civil War had allot of liberty concerning the actual drill, especially under fire, but I think these dettails, not beeing a fundemental feature, are nontheway important to create taht "realistic feel".

 

As for your idea of adding a strategic feature in the future, have you ever tried the very old game "Napoleon 1813" from microprose? It is actually almost unplayable and have been long abandonned and forgotten, but the idea is probably the best I have ever seen about a strategical/tactical wargame. Worth giving a tought...

 

 

Thanks,

Ferragus

[Adrian]

Killed soldier need blood in Game

[SgtGrunt]

What always wanted to see in a tactical war game is a well done game mechanic that reflects the cohesion, leadership and level of competence of an individual unit.

 

For example, for the scale of this game, I'd like to see the individual unit as either a Regiment for Infantry, Cavalry and a Battery for Artillery.

 

• Cohesion could equal a units moral level, willingness to charge, stand in battle and rally. Cohesion would degrade in combat.
• Leadership should reflect strategic, tactical and motivational qualities. Or, lack there of.
• Level of competence should reflect experience, weapons type and training.

I feel it is imperative that the pace of the game be slower than lets say Rome Total War. I never liked the chaos of units moving/running about willy nilly. If a unit is breaking, I want to know exactly why.

I also feel that the control of individual units should be at a more tactical level. A units formation was still very important in the American Civil War. I feel that formations like Skirmish, Line, March Column and Attack Column are imperative to properly reflect the feel of a ACW battlefield.

 

Can't wait to run this game through it's paces. Huzza!

[dagdamor1]

My first impression is bewilderment. Bewilderment at how such a gem could have not caught my eye from October to February.

 

I hope that Ultimate General becomes a long-lived and thoroughly successful series, because I would deeply enjoy watching Moore's Law enhancing Ultimate General like a fine wine with every new installment.

[Queeg]

Just saw the trailer, and the game looks great visually.  The trailer does give me some concerns about gameplay, however.

 

First, unit movement speed seems way too fast.  Hard to gauge without seeing how command and control actually works in game, but if this is another Napoleon Total War, watch them line up, fire two volleys and then charge into melee affair, then it will be a big disappointment.

 

Second, and related to the first, every third unit in the trailer seems to be engaged in some sort of disordered Braveheart-style suicide charge.  That's just wrong as a matter of history.  Please tell me the trailer is a bit of poetic license that doesn't reflect the actual game play.  

[Myes!]

First, unit movement speed seems way too fast.  Hard to gauge without seeing how command and control actually works in game, but if this is another Napoleon Total War, watch them line up, fire two volleys and then charge into melee affair, then it will be a big disappointment.

 

Second, and related to the first, every third unit in the trailer seems to be engaged in some sort of disordered Braveheart-style suicide charge.  That's just wrong as a matter of history.  Please tell me the trailer is a bit of poetic license that doesn't reflect the actual game play.  

 

 

 

Indeed. Total War-style borderline offensive arcade -idiocy like that were some of the very things DarthMod was famous for fixing, back in the day. It would be a great disappointment to see those things make an appearance in Darth's own game.

[Nick Thomadis]

 

 

 

Indeed. Total War-style borderline offensive arcade -idiocy like that were some of the very things DarthMod was famous for fixing, back in the day. It would be a great disappointment to see those things make an appearance in Darth's own game.

 

If you mean "Benny Hill" movement speeds, no, that will not happen. Have patience for detailed gameplay videos.

[Myes!]

If you mean "Benny Hill" movement speeds, no, that will not happen.

 

 

What about the charging?

[Nick Thomadis]

Charging will be as good and realistic as it can be.