David Fair

My apologies for not communicating effectively. The shapes in Choice 3 are fine for representing the difference between: Square - infantry Cavalry guidon - cavalry Triangle - artillery I was expecting the USA & CSA flag to be represented on the Square, Guidon, and Triangle for their respective sides. The idea was to get the flags as pictured in choice #2 for the infantry. A Cavalry Guidon with the appropriate national flag on the Guidon, see the first flag at: http://www.usflagdepot.com/store/page18.html CSA Cavalry Guidon (bottom flag) at: http://www.thewargamer.com/battlecry/pix/csaflags.jpg and the Triangle for artillery. See Union at: http://moreinmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/American-Flag-triangle.jpg for the confederate I'd suggest using the rebel flag with 7 stars The key is that when you click on the icon you get the unit; which is the current problem. It's difficult to click on the unit you want to give it a command (particularly artillery).

Interesting comments regarding ammo. Hadn't thought about this before but having an ammo wagon/division or corps might make the game more interesting. I'd suggest tying the ammo wagons to the road network for both historical accuracy as well as making the road network relevant to the game. The capture of a supply train would impede the supplies of the losing side. Additionally the capture of supplies could be another metric for victory.

Is it possible to include a third option in this poll? Option A is Awful Option B is Bad Options C is Current system. The problem with UGG is the small size of the artillery footprint. Rather than clutter the screen with new stuff that wasn't a problem (identifying infantry/cavalry); fix the player's ability to identify their artillery. This can be done with the flag shape or an icon; but both option A & B destroy the visual appearance of a "battlefield simulation" in favor of a game.

The problem has been identifying the artillery units with their minimalist footprint in UGG. Artillery gets bunched up with infantry/cavalry and lost in the clutter. I'd suggest using the Square flag for infantry, a cavalry guidon for cavalry, and a triangle flag for artillery. Then you know by the shape of the flag the type of unit you are selecting without additional clutter. The icons in the examples above are more of a distraction than a benefit visually. I like watching my sprites fight it out.

Kenichinsfs, I've walked the entire Gettysburg battlefield many times over many decades in all seasons. The picture you've attached is looking at the west slope of Little Round Top from the rise behind and a bit to the right side (south side) of Devil's Den. The terrain around the Round Tops area is not typical of the entire battlefield. Most of the Gettysburg area (where the battle was fought) at that time was, in fact, rolling fields with 0.5 to 1 meter field stone walls around the perimeter of many of the fields. The Devil's Den topographical feature is unique to the battlefield. There are some small rock outcroppings near Oak Hill; but nothing like a cliff. Topographically the area is dominated by rolling Pennsylvania farm land. Area around Pitzer's Run https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1476&bih=897&q=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&oq=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&gs_l=img.3...1575.8408.0.8658.23.10.0.13.13.0.187.780.9j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..13.10.780.Uk-L2BIuxQ4#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=WxN80z8z2lPDoM%3A%3BwkfrifsG_q8tZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Flibriscrowe.com%252FGettysburg%252FDSCN0799.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Flibriscrowe.com%252FGettysburg%252Fgburg4.htm%3B500%3B375 Note in your picture the line of stone walls in the upper right corner. This was roughly the position of Union 3rd Brigade, 1st Division, V Corps, Army of the Potomac, (Strong Vincent's Brigade (including the 20th Maine)). The area between Culp's Hill and Benner's Hill along Rock Creek does have some swampy areas but these wet areas are often dry and solid in the summer months. I don't know that the ground would support the weight of a cannon in 1863 over some of this lower terrain; but my guess is that it would be slow going with artillery. There are areas along Rock Creek that are swampy in fall through spring (e.g., Spangler's Spring). These wet areas might have been militarily relevant if the area around Wolf's Hill (west of Culp's Hill along Rock Creek) had been contested in any season but summer. Plum run for example is not much of an obstacle: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1476&bih=897&q=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&oq=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&gs_l=img.3...1575.8408.0.8658.23.10.0.13.13.0.187.780.9j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..13.10.780.Uk-L2BIuxQ4#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=j61orxJlhKBwxM%3A%3B55kpB-77LxYOcM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgettysburg.stonesentinels.com%252FPlaces%252FResources%252FPlumRun_4692.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgettysburg.stonesentinels.com%252FPlaces%252FResources%252F%3B685%3B514 The structures around Gettysburg are predominately small wooden farm houses. You might get a couple of sharpshooters in a top floor window; but militarily these buildings were irrelevant. I'm not aware of any accounts that the houses around Gettysburg were occupied as fortified strong points. The Seminary is a substantial structure and some the small houses in Gettysburg are brick. But again, the Seminary tower was used as an observation point not as a fortification.

Nick, I'm a business dev guy not a hard core gamer. If I was investing in your game company here's what I'd suggest: My hypothesis is that the statistics in historical games have made the learning curve (real and perceived) too steep for strategy games and too complex/confusing to attract new players. The sales data on the player community is that the numbers of folks playing strategy games is decreasing; so you have a big challenge with this game. I believe unit statistics lack mass market appeal and get in the way of the fun (tactics, realism, and strategy). I'm convinced that unit statistics are for hard core games and don't give mass market volume players a deeper understanding of tactics or strategy or make a game more "fun". Unit statistics narrow the user base. I'd suggest reducing the number and complexity of UI statistics, simplify the format of the statistics, and reduce complexity of information on the screen (If I can't command a unit it is not flashing white on the screen. The computer takes over this unit until it reforms and I can take command again). I'm a fan of history but I'm not a demanding player. I don't have time for demanding games. I'm looking for mentally challenging entertainment in a fast paced game that I can enjoy in a couple of hours in a hotel room. My play metric is that I want to finish all four days of Gettysburg in about 4 hours of play. Philosophically we have two different perspectives on how to accelerate TTM and broaden the user base. As you've stated, game testing is always the litmus test for game balance. I'm just trying to assist with your Time to Money (TTM). My suspicion is that if you test with the Game Grognards in this forum they have one set of expectations (e.g., I want the stats in an icon with the percentages and a graphic bar). If you can test with history fan newbies you may get feedback that may help broaden the appeal of the game. I'm trying to reduce and hide complexity and make suggestions that attract more customers to your game. Email may not be the best communication method for biz strategy or to discuss implementing creativity.

Nick, I agree. Satisfying users for an optimal experience in software development is a tremendous challenge. It is staggering how often software is developed to give a user exactly what they ask for; only to discover that the user didn't really know what they wanted and aren't satisfied with what thought they wanted. Very tough learning curve to develop products that give people UI results that makes their DNA buzz. Those of us in the profession of translating user requirements to software implementation understand the complexity and scope of the task. It will be great to see your implementation! Your responsiveness in this forum has been a learning experience for me. You've done a fantastic job of opening the development kimono enough to allow the community to peek at ideas. Hopefully you are seeing the benefit from the feedback for your design. I'm really looking forward to more. BTW - One of my favorite pictures of the Civil War is Grant on the first day of Shilo. Grant is sitting on a stump all alone, whittling with his knife. What is astounding about that picture is at the time it was taken he had 10,000 routed and demoralized troops milling around Pittsburg Landing and didn't know if his army would survive the day. Grant's focus was on the state of his army; not individual units. When Sherman saw Grant in the evening Sherman said, "We've had the devils own day of it." Grant simply replied, "Yep, but we'll whip 'em tomorrow." Sherman says in his autobiography he was stunned by Gran't resolute response and determination. Two of the primary leaders had the same facts, on the same day, at the same time and came to very different conclusions on the state of the army. You may be right that most players couldn't deal with this level of realism in a game. But how would we know? I can't think of a game that can replicate the confusion that pervaded the first hand Civil War accounts of battle. Note that Carl von Clausewitz states that both regimental and division commanders under fire had a command perimeter of about 100 meters. Gen. Joe Hooker was so confused at Chancellorsville that his staff described him walking around, "like a stunned duck". Computer games provide vastly more information than is available about unit status than and commander up through and including WWII. PS - Just letting you know I emphatically and respectfully disagree with your statement, "And in realistic situation you can more easily understand what is happening (as you use all your sensors) than in game where you have limited data based on graphics and sounds that replicate realism." I'm from a military family.

Nick, Hopefully your statement that, "Much information will be given from the flag itself in a very subtle way" is not a euphemism for we are copying the Sid Meyer "crumpled flag" implementation. In Sid Meyer as unit moral sagged their flag drooped and eventually the troops routed. The Sid Meyer series was all about micromanaging which units to take off the line. Battleground was fun to play a couple of times; but way too much micromanagement. Strategy game micromanagement has driven scores of people away from this genre of game. Battleground's implementation detracted from the tactics of maneuver to pin enemy units in place, then flank, and shatter the enemy. I'm hoping to see an implementation that breaks new new ground with strategy games; a game where you actually need to devise a plan and follow that strategy to win the battle. Fog of war is a key component on the battlefield. If commanders always know which units are going to run then you artificially level all commanders. Great commanders know where to have reserves and when to use them. What set Napoleon and Lee apart from other commanders was their ability to understand the pulse of a battle. Both of these commanders knew how to find an open flank and smash it. They managed their battles with a gut sense of timing; not by micromanaging the statistics floating around their commands. Droopy flag games; been there done that. Fog of war - I've been playing strategy games for years and never seen a satisfying strategy game implementation. Once the innovation of moral was introduced into strategy games then game developers wanted to quantify and track "the level" of statistics. Devising new statistics to display that players were to monitor was mistaken for innovation. Strategy games were displaced by first person shooters; with good reason. Too many geeky details,statistics, and graphics that detract from a great gaming experience. The unpredictability of first person shooters is a large part what brings people back to a game (along with flashing lights and sounds - a bit too Las Vegas for my taste; but you get the point). You have the ability to implement a strategy game that breaks new ground with a new concept. Moral is critical to how units behave; but it is intangible. I'd urge you to ditch the legacy "quantify and expose every statistic" mentality. Attract new blood to the strategy game genre. Reduce the statistics, increase the pace of play. Embrace the chaos of the battlefield. I'm not looking to play a deterministic game of chess when I play a strategy game. I'm looking for the thrill of not knowing precisely how my units will react to the decisions I've made. The right level of battlefield chaos/excitement is what will return players to a strategy game genre. One of the problems with the old board games was they were completely deterministic and the odds were well known (roll of a dice). Most miniatures rules were quantified to the point that it took 10 hours to simulate 2 hours of combat. Computers offered the potential for great strategy games; but game designers got so caught up in the UI statistic tracking that they've destroyed the strategy game experience and alienated the customer base to the die hard. My suggestions/observations: Hide the complexity and statistics that makes your game great and unique. Don't do a hybrid tw - dump the white flashing flags; broken units are the least important to a commander's options Just because you don't display a bunch of statistics doesn't mean your users will think the game is simple We will learn to trust the game engine as we play. Give players a fast to learn; easy to play game without a bunch of fantasy statistics (moral, firepower, melee...) Focus on the important (number and quality of men and current state of fatigue) Make a game that is brutally challenging to master (not micromanage) Give the player the same qualify of information that leaders had historically (simplify) Focus on the tempo of the game to make it fast paced (I don't want to study a unit's statistics to decide if I should attack an enemy's position. Leaders I trust are in positions of responsibility; I know my troops are veterans, and they are fresh - Charge!) Statistics (especially the illusion of precision for intangibles like moral) drive people away from strategy games; keep the statistics you expose to the game player to an absolutely critical minimum Focus on the quality of the battle experience; not the number of statistics.

Hey Trig, My thoughts for the designers are contributed with the goal to make an innovative and great game. I think there is a tremendous amount of implementation innovation space in games; and I'm try to help flesh out ideas. My goal is to push the envelope on promoting the footprint for strategy games than to take a stand on implementation details. I believe that the more folks that play strategy games the more money is available to improve the quality of historical simulation games. At this point I'm not certain I have enough information to answer your question. Here's a try; if we presume that units will appear on the battlefield in something like the Sid Meyer format: 1) Miniatures represent units. Each unit is designated by, at a minimum, the national flag. It would be really cool if the units carried both the national flag and a state flag representing the regimental color guard (per your suggestion above). 2) Units with high experience and cohesion are high and tight formations. As cohesion deteriorates the unit battle line on the screen decays and the units spreads out. Thus elite units would usually appear differently on the map than militia (militia are spread 25% wider/deeper with the same number of figures). Historically militia on the march tended to elongate and straggle on roads. Militia in linear formations, even at rest, had lines that waver a bit. Veterans understand their survival depends on their ability to stay with the colors and tended to hold tighter formations much longer under stress (on the move & in battle). Historically, when militia routed they were off to the races. Veteran units tended to hang together, stay with their colors, rally much closer to the battle lines, and much rally faster. While it would be possible to confuse a veteran unit with a militia unit under some conditions; commanders with experience learn to tell the difference in experienced troops at great distances very quickly. Civil War commanders could frequently recognize elite enemy formations from newly formed units through their binoculars. 3) Routed units lack any linear form as they stream toward the rear. This gets rid of the flashing white flag. It would also be interesting if routed or captured unit could lose their colors; making them hors de combat for the duration of the battle. Let me know if this description of the unit appearance on the map is adequate to answer your question. I'm happy to try again. Please note that I have a bias in that I've worked in the supercomputing .mil & IC community professionally for more than 20 years. The folks I talk with say that they know a unit is beyond it's stress level when the commander sees him men's backsides disappearing over the next county line. That's why I'm not a fan of the panic/retreat white flashing tw approach; and in my opinion the low moral/wavering is a cheesy unrealistic stale innovation from tw games that interferes with the satisfaction of historical game play. My view is make the game better than tw and build a fan base that enjoys an experience different from tw. When I hover the cursor over a unit on the map I get the Name of the Unit, Commander, and Number of Men. The statistics for the unit, are represented as two status bars with appropriate levels of fill (see example 16 above). Bar #1 is the experience level of unit (Elite = 100%, Veteran = 80%, Seasoned = 70%, Trained = 50% Militia = 30% for example) Bar #2 is the fatigue/cohesion/condition (Fresh = 100%, routed = 0%) The experience bar is specific to each unit and static for the battle. (Implementation thought - unit status might be modified if they had very high casualties or a surprising victory; the unit would step up or down a level.) The fatigue/cohesion/condition bar moves up/down based on events (movement, long-range casualties, time on the firing line, or melee). (In my opinion pictures of commander below the Corps level are just eye candy. I can do with 'em or without 'em. I'm more interested in quality of play than seeing what Colonel X look like). If this is going to be a NATO symbol unit representation then I'd need to think more about how to represent the unit experience levels. Possibly shades of red for confederate and blue for union?

Nick it sounds great that every pixel on the map plays a role. I'm looking forward to see how to optimally deploy units for my tactical intent without micromanagement of precise unit placement on this or that pixel. I'll trust that you've got the implementation figured out and it will be clear when I've got my troops in reserve on the reverse slope and out of harm's way. Really looking forward to more information. Keep up the great work.

Given this is an RTS game the faster I can get the status the more satisfying the game flow. I don't want a click fest; but, I also don't want a bunch of grunt work while I'm under RTS time pressure. I'd suggest you consider that "less quantitative detail = better game experience". We don't need to see the game engine complexity to appreciate the game. What I don't like about the status numbers is that it gives the illusion of precision on abstraction ideas. Both Moral and Cohesion are subjective abstractions. Real but intangible. Officer's in combat don't have droopy flags to know when their men are at the end of their endurance. Why should a game have these fantasy metrics? Status of troops in combat is usually not clear to the officer in command until he orders his command to do somthing. The troops can either follow the order (charge, fallback...). stand their ground, skedaddle, or surrender. General Lee, attempting to rally his men asked a private, "why are you running?" The man replied, "General Lee I'm running because I can't fly". Commanders know how much experience units brought to the fight, when they've eaten, and how much sleep/rest they've had. What they can't predict is how well a unit will fight on a given day. During the civil war units (and commanders) sometimes fought above/below their reputations. Rather than Moral and Cohesion I'd suggest Experience and Fatigue metrics. Experience is a static unit state. It could be represented as in 16 above with the top of the scale Elite and the bottom Militia. Most units fall in the top third at this point in the war as the units were veteran or seasoned. Fatigue is dynamic based on how fast and far a unit moves, how long it is under fire, unit casualties, and melee. Recovery from movement is rapid. Battle fatigue is cumulative and more disruptive. In 15 minutes seasoned troops recover from a 100 yard dash or a two hour march. In 15 minutes units in a fire fight with 30% casualties on open ground will be shattered for the day. In 3 minutes of a melee units will be shaken for hours. Obviously night contributed significantly to recovery from fatigue. As a commander I decide how much experience to put on the firing line. Examples: I'll keep that Pennsylvania militia in reserve on the reverse slope to ensure they don't rout and carry more experienced troops on their flanks with them. I'll put Howard's XI Corps on advantageous terrain because the Corps is suspect even before it comes under fire. Thus, the only metric I need to consider is my troop quality and their fatigue level. Final thought on units icons. Rather than follow the tw blinking white flags I'd suggest innovation. Units in formed status are under command and represented on the map. Shattered units appear as an unformed mob until they retreat to safety where they can recover fatigue and reorganize. When units are sufficiently recovered they regain their formed status. Commanders worried about how to recover their shattered flank and how to protect a broken Corps from total destruction with the organized units still under their command. I'd suggest focusing on formed units is an important differentiator from other games. Rally points for broken units are frequently dictated by events, or the enemy, rather than orders. Had Ewell pushed at Culp's Hill on Day 1 the Union XI Corps may not have been able to rally and hold the hill. Those flashing white flags in tw are a useless distraction. Let the shattered units fall back to safe positions; then when they reform the units retake the field as a formed unit. This is much more historically accurate than tw.

It would be interesting if the battle results were not a static list and had some quasi-random historical twists... Example of variables might include: 1) War carries into 1866 with a negotiated settlement: Status quo ante bellum. 2) Pemberton escapes Grant at Vicksburg - McClellan elected President; slavery adopted nationally as the 13th Amendment 3) Lee's Army of Northern Virginia shattered at the banks of the Potomac - war ends in 1864 4) Negotiated Peace - forced evacuation of all former slaves to New Mexico 5) England invades western territories claiming Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and the Dakotas 6) Russia reclaims California 7) French conquer Mexico and move into the South West 8) McClellan elected President - US adopts "States Rights Supremacy Clause" effectively dissolving the Union by recognizing the right to succession 9) If a Union decisive victory - Virginia secedes from the CSA and formally rejoins the Union 10) If a Confederate decisive victory - Washington DC and Baltimore occupied by CSA. Maryland joins CSA as the 14th star...

Thoughts on the stunning Gettysburg map: The rock walls on the battlefield played a key role in defensive positions. It would be great if these man made defensive positions were included on the map. One of the challenges will be positioning troops on the map to take optimal tactical advantage of the terrain features. For example, if I want my troops on the military crest of the hill (defense) vs. the topographical crest (observation), vs. the reverse slope (stealth/surprise/safety) to keep them out of sight or out of cannon range how can I tell when I've got them in the desired position? Historically regimental officers served this role to ensure troop dispositions conformed with orders. The Colonel would scope out the ground then deploy appropriately. Longstreet's orders to keep his troops out of sight caused hours of delay in getting his Corps in position at Gettysburg. Terrain is a fantastic opportunity for game innovation. If the terrain had designations when I was giving commands I could select how my troops would deploy upon arrival at destination. Example: I click and drag a command to Culp's Hill. As the cursor hovers over Culp's Hill the map highlights "attack" if the position is enemy occupied. If the terrain is unoccupied then I get the choice of "defense", "observation", or "stealth". When my troops reach the destination they deploy according to my orders. If the troops encounter opposition they fight according to their move orders. Units moving should be under orders to assault, attack, probe, or fall back engaged. This combination of how aggressively to move to location plus how to deploy upon arrival comes very close to civil war regimental orders. My suspicion is that this can be creatively accomplished in a click and drag format. Famously it was Lee's order to Ewell to take Culp's Hill, "if practical" that established the Union defensive positions. Had Ewell been ordered to take the hill "at all hazard" the Union defensive positions at Gettysburg might have been shattered late on Day 1. If any of you enthusiasts have implementation thoughts it would be interesting to see you ideas on how troops should interface with the map terrain.

Thanks for the honest disclaimer. It helps understand some of the challenges you are grappling with. My vote is with Nick and the programmers; it reduces the number things absorb to 5 columns to get a quick status. It also reduces the unit status footprint. The art team's version has 20 visual blocks with no value added for the clutter of the formatting preference. I'm not persuaded that: 1) the blocks are innovative (I do agree it has not been done this way before; but let's not confuse novel presentation with innovation (e.g., is a parallelogram more innovative than a square?)) 2) 4 blocks are simpler than a single bar with a fill level 3) a child is the right metric for the game's look/feel let alone the target market. I suspect casual players can understand the difference between a single column highlighted 50% vs. 2 blocks 4) 4 blocks provide more data immediacy than 1 column It would assist if we could see the unit representation on the map for this discussion. I can't identify the unit's frontage/flanks. Will we be clicking on a unit to drill down into it's status? Or are we clicking on the "X" on map when troops are in action? A couple of observations: First Observation - firepower is a function of armament and number of men in the ranks, and fatigue. I'd suggest that you consider getting rid of this status bar as it is a subset of the other factors. The rifled musket was standard infantry issue for both sides during the conflict. The introduction of repeating rifles had an impact on firepower; but again Union Cavalry firepower was a function of armament and the number of troopers. I don't know if you are planning to include sharpshooters as they also were not armed with rifled muskets. You might consider highlighting specially armed troops with a silver lining around them - there just weren't that many units at Gettysburg that were armed with other than rifled muskets. Second Observation - melee power is a function of number of men in the ranks, moral, unit cohesion, and fatigue. A regiment's colonel was responsible to subjectively evaluate the will of his men to fight at close quarters. I'd suggest that you consider getting rid of this status bar as it is a subset of other factors. Third Observation - a unit's officers are responsible for the unit's disposition. The game engine should micromanage the terrain selection by snapping troops to optimal cover. I order my troops to take and hold Herr Ridge; my units select the optimal cover for the objective I've selected to occupy/hold. I don't want to jockey units on the screen to take advantage of obvious terrain benefits. Officers on both sides, by this point in the war, understood cover and how to optimize the terrain. Additionally, the soldiers themselves had been trained to survive by taking cover. My guess is that the snipers in Devils Den were not ordered to stack up stones for cover - it was a survival instinct. By reducing the number of status fields you improve the ability to display a unit's critical information quickly. This should aid in both play and game performance. I'd suggest key status metrics are: number of effective men in the ranks, armament (only for non-rifled musket troops), unit moral, and cohesion (which is a function of training, experience, and fatigue). The Iron Brigade is a good example of an elite veteran unit that exhibited pride in it's ability to stand and fight even after it had suffered casualties and fatigue.

Very busy & difficult to read icons. I'd suggest using the commander picture, in items 10 through 13 with a red background for Confederates; blue for Union. Alternatively the commander's name background could be in red/blue and you could use the pictures of the commander's with the cloud background as in 18 through 21. The Moral, Cover, Cohesion/Condition, Firepower, and Melee bars on 20 & 21 look great; but organizing them in a vertical stack is difficult to grock quickly. A horizontal orientation for the unit status would be is easier to read as pictured on item 16. It would be better visually if all of the stats were on a single line; and grouped logically. The grouping I'd suggest would be Moral with Cohesion/Condition. Then Firepower with Melee. If you were going to include ammo in the game I'd group it with Firepower. I'd suggest removing the Flag from the stats line so you'd have room to get everything on a single line. The unit strength can be above the Commander's name or with the unit name. Status bars as on 16 vs. status bars with numbers as on 18 & 19: If the status is going to jump in 25% increments then the numbers on example 18 don't add much. Given that a units cohesion (and even the strength of terrain) was subjective I'd prefer the status bars on 16 as it reduces the precision that a commander has for evaluating his unit. My suggestion would be move the status bars up/down in 10% increments. 25% increments seem too big a jump. I'd relegate kills to some kind of "intelligence report" that was only visible when you click on an icon that is tracking kills vs. losses. Perhaps you could use the commander's picture, his name, the unit name, or the flag as the intelligence report icon to save space and make if functional as well as eye candy. I'm not clear on the definition of Action or the benefit of the picture of the crossed swords? It looks like it takes up space and adds clutter. Cover is both a function of strength of the natural position and the time a unit is stationary on the terrain. Devil's Den and Culp's Hill had a wealth of material for cover (fallen timber, rocks and soil). Farmland offered less cover (Dan Sickles III Corps) as the surface area had been worked and debris had been removed to the stone walls surrounding the fields. Rather than have a Cover icon I'd suggest you have a border like the one Trig has in his picture above. As the unit occupies strong terrain the the border around the unit grows from grey to red for Confederates and white to blue for Union. The longer a unit is stationary the more effectively the troops can dig in. You get the idea and the implementation details are less important than de-cluttering the unit icons. I'm not a fan of the symbols used in 1 through 15 or 25 through 29. Look too goofy (particularly the muscle arm).

Nick, Thanks for the feedback. My work demands time/thought so opportunities to game are limited; it's important to find efficient and intellectually challenging gaming. UGG looks like it has the potential to be one of the best historical simulations for Gettysburg. Keep up the great work and I'm happy to contribute/help.

The Great Dane II, If you like tw zooming in you should go to an event hosted by some of the reenactment groups. It's great fun to stand in or near the line with the sounds, smoke, smell, and taste of black powder than zooming in on a computer screen. Clinch, I hope you're right and UGG strikes a balance between tw and Sid Meyers. It would be great so see a game improve on the Sid Meyers concept with closer linkage between scenarios and more battle continuity.

The point of getting your opinions is to see how much variance there is on the historical outcome. Understanding gamer's perspectives can help define the metrics of how to set victory standards. So who won and by how much?

I retract my criticism. This looks great! You guys are really thinking this game through for both historical accuracy, metrics, and flexibility. One final thought for your consideration. MIA troops. It took substantial efforts to sort out commands, particularly after major movements culminating in fighting (Pickett's Charge). This was especially true in major attacks that were repulsed or units that routed. Severely demoralized troops had much higher MIA rates (Howard's XI Union Corps on Day 1; General Schimmelfennig in particular). - Men shirked or got into the fight and were confused, lost, scared, helped a comrade to the rear, dropped out of the ranks to help/stay with a wounded friend/brother or officer - Men that fought close to home had a propensity to elect AWOL discharges. This was especially true after the South abandoned Richmond where Lee's army dwindled to 25,000 men. - Men close to Gettysburg had an opportunity to spend some time in "high feather" to supplement rations, find a bottle, souvenir hunt, etc... It sometimes took days to get reunited with commands. General Schimmelfennig was trapped in a woodshed for on Day 1 and returned to his command on Day 4. (Sherman's "bummers" didn't return to the ranks until they hit Savannah where supplies were only issued to men in organized units). MIA is a primary component of the fog of war. I'm looking forward to a discussion on the cumulative effects of fog of war and reserve status/night recovery rates.

Who won the Battle of Gettysburg? Was the battle a: Confederate Decisive Victory Confederate Strategic Victory Confederate Tactical Victory Confederate Marginal Victory Draw Union Marginal Victory Union Tactical Victory Union Strategic Victory Union Decisive Victory

Replicating a historical blunder should not be the justification for a game duration design flaw. I'm discouraged by your game start on "Day 1 and will finish on the evening of Day 3" response. Day 4 is the opportunity to "what if" the decisive battle of the Civil War and end the war in 1863 vs. 1865. The combination of the loss of Vicksburg and the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia would have ended the war. Alternatively, the destruction of the Army of the Potomac would have changed the course of the Civil War. Lee kept his forces at Gettysburg for 4 Days. On Day 4 Lee consolidated his positions and gave Meade the opportunity to attack his army deployed on Oak Ridge and Seminary Ridge. The Confederates constructed breastworks and rifle pits that extended 2.5 miles from the Mummasburg Road to the Emmitsburg Road. Lee sent his wagon train carrying vast quantities of captured equipment and supplies and 8,000 wounded who were fit to travel to the rear in advance of his remaining forces. Just because Meade chose not to attack on Day 4 does not mean that the game should end on the evening of Day 3. Day 4 at Gettysburg would likely have been the decisive day. Historically Day 4 was not decisive; but from a gamer's perspective I'd urge you to consider the historical opportunity that was missed. Lincoln pushed to get Meade to attack; what if he had? Day 4 is the reason to game Gettysburg. Lee had lost 1/3 of his forces. Meade had lost 1/4. The odds were getting longer for the Confederacy. There is ongoing debate about who won the Battle of Gettysburg. If there was a winner it was a marginal victory. Neither side accomplished it's goals. Capturing key topography is very important. Using topographical data to tie phases of the battle makes sense for the "total flow of the battle for a given day". What does not make sense is awarding "victory points" to determine the game metrics for "winning".

At the start of the Gettysburg Campaign R.E. Lee saw that the fence on a Pennsylvania farm was being torn apart by his troops. He stopped, got off his horse, and rebuilt the fence. He refused the help of his staff or his soldiers while his columns marched past on the road. Lee wanted to make a point and take a long time to fix the fence to ensure as many of his men saw their commander repairing the damage. Lee's message - we came North to secure Southern Independence. If we need to defeat the Union Army we will. We have not come North to pillage U.S. citizens. We will pay for what we take (in worthless Southern money; but...). We will fight Lincoln and the policy of the 'Black Republicans' to protect our 'peculiar institution' and the way of life for the South. Lee's goals, as negotiated with Jefferson Davis for the campaign were to: 1) sustain his army at northern expense 2) keep his army north as long as possible 3) demonstrate that the North could not defeat the South militarily 4) secure international recognition by the British, French, or Russians 5) defeat the Army of the Potomac "if practical" 6) influence the politics of the North for a negotiated separation 7) give southern logistics a chance to recover and gather the harvest Lee envisioned a repeat of the Shenandoah Campaign on a grand scale. Stuart's raid stole Lee's ability to achieve the strategic aims of the campaign; reconnaissance was the essential element required to stay north and defeat elements of the Army of the Potomac piecemeal. Lee blundered into Gettysburg and fought a battle because he thought he could get his army together fast enough to defeat isolated Union Corps elements. He stayed and fought for 3 days because he had lost the strategic initiative once the armies had assembled. Note - If you are considering night marches extracting one's army intact is the most frequent nighttime maneuver. So with this background defining topographical metrics for victory doesn't make much sense (capture hill A for 50 victory points!). The goal of the campaign was not to take and/or hold ground. Gettysburg was about killing as efficiently and at the lowest possible cost to the South. The South needed to kill at about a 2:1 ratio. Lee needed to capture equipment, cannons, horses and tack, clothing, ammunition... For the North the goal was to: 1) destroy the Army of Northern Virginia Note that after the battle Lincoln was dismayed that the Southern Army was chased South. Meade had failed in the President's eyes. The war continued. Every scenario victory should be influenced these strategic campaign goals. This puts movement, speed, flanking attacks, and efficient planning and command at a premium. In short; a game of strategy. I've played too many games where some cheesy tactical topographical point is worth sacrificing troops in frontal attacks leading to absurd command decisions and battle results. Why play a game where Pickett's charge will happen in every game so the results of the battle are preordained by topography? Anyone who has walked the Gettysburg battlefield extensively understands why Culp's Hill was not practical once Union troops had time to fortify the hill. (I don't mean walk the visitor trails; but to actually crawl up that hill and consider how it would be almost impossible for 300 men abreast to get to the top).

Civil War enthusiasts often have their favorite "superhero" who's exploits "turned the tide of battle" (Chamberlain, Dawes...). The command chain of both armies had numerous unknown staff officers at the Corps and Army levels that were given (or had the authority to take) temporary command of units; Note - General Warren's Statue is atop Little Round Top for a reason. When critical commanders are wounded/KIA command might devolve to the next most senior officer. At night commanders could assign staff officers to lead Brigade or Corps commands vacated by casualties. If it helps sell the game to have a "superhero" designation for a leader that's fine. But for those of us who believe the chain of command was where critical decisions were made and the battle was won/lost it would be preferable not to be encumbered with the, "host of unknown majors and captains and lieutenants". The design decision to encumber the game with player modified "superheros" should be made in the context of game play. Personally I prefer a randomized leadership metrics to reduce the predictability of results and increase the re-playability. (Avoids - Superhero Colonel X should always be at the most critical point of the line). It's important to keep "superheros" in perspective: 1) Dawes captured 200 rebs in the railroad cut. 2) Chamberlain's 266 men, the 20th was considered a weak link in Vincent’s brigade (see http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/gettysburg/gettysburg-history-articles/defense-of-little-round-top.html) On Little Round Top the 120 experienced combat veterans from the 2nd Maine brought the 20th’s ranks up to 386 infantrymen and helped hold Chamberlain’s wobbling line together. Chamberlain had orders to shoot the mutineers if they refused duty. When their ammunition had almost run out, Chamberlain decided to fix bayonets and charge down into the two Alabama regiments. Chamberlain later said he communicated his decision to counterattack to Captain Ellis Spear, the acting battalion commander of the unit’s left flank. Spear, however, claimed he received no such orders. Corporal Elisha Coan, a member of the 20th Maine’s color guard, claimed that 1st Lt. Holman S. Melcher, the acting commander of Company F, actually conceived the idea to advance the colors and that Colonel Chamberlain initially hesitated, fearing that it would be extremely hazardous. Coan said other officers joined Melcher in urging a forward movement. Melcher sprang out in front of the line with his sword flashing. Captain Spear said he never received a formal order to charge — he charged only after he saw the colors start forward. Melcher ordered them forward because they were not sure if the colonel had sanctioned the attack. One of the problems with "superheros" is the memories of those who served with them. Ask John Kerry about his swift boat service vs. the men who served with him. It doesn't matter where the truth is; the point is that UGG is a game and should be enjoyable to play/replay.

Including signals sounds complicated to me and of questionable game experience value. But, if you plan to incorporate semaphore/signals please keep in mind that both sides could read each others semaphore codes.

Clinch, UGG looks like a great battlefield engine; and would be greater if it allows more flexibility than refighting Gettysburg 20 times. Even great games against new gamers get old. Maps of the Civil War period varied tremendously (Same was true in WWII...). Local knowledge was essential to fill in map details. Hostile locals reduced intelligence significantly. The precision of maps, population sentiment, and recon all had an impact on C2 decisions. Sickles decision to move his Corps forward at Gettysburg was based on faulty perception of the line he was defending. He moved forward to "higher ground" and his Corps was decimated. If his maps were so accurate why did he sacrifice his Corps? Sherman at Chattanooga attacked a hill that he believed was part of Missionary Ridge. It wasn't until he had taken the hill that he realized that he couldn't get his troops off the hill and over the ridge he was suppose to take. Note that Sherman had been in Chattanooga with maps for a couple of weeks to plan the attack; but couldn't correctly interpret the lay of the land from telescope or maps. This was much more the rule than the exception during the Civil War; ravines, fords, deep brush all impact combat/movement to an extent that is not obvious until you walk the land. Custer at Bull Run rode his horse into the run to show his general how deep the water was and that it could be crossed at all points immediately. Despite this intelligence Union troops continued to march to the bridge and cross. Antietam is another great example of a battle where the maps from both sides were good; but, the casualties were extraordinary because the lay of the land allowed troops to close to point blank range by following the topography for cover. Note that the topography of the battlefield had to be studied in the last 20 years to understand why the casualties were so high. Topography is tricky. You've clicked into the idea - only I think of this as quasi-random map generator. It would be great to have a game engine that could be tied to Campaign software. AGEODs is a good example of a strategic game with a terrible battle interface. It would be great to have the flexibility to link UGG battles in a campaign engine. When a battle occurs I'd like to reference historical maps or even fill in details with Google earth to zoom into my battlefield topography. The Battlefield series, for example, had a project that tried to do something like this for the Napoleonic Wars. Gamers were able to build maps etc. The game had no campaign interface; so the result was a series of battles that really didn't have much context.