Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

Ensign
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  1. My battle is over. 22,000 CSA losses to 37,000 Union losses. Casualties in some Union divisions reach 80% In the phase with 2,500 to 10,000 casualties I had a huge numerical advantage (28,000 vs 17,000 and 5 to i advantage in artillery ) - and could use the firepower to the best (Lanchester's laws). I simply mowed down encircled enemy troops with methodical musket and artillery fire.
  2. I am amidst a stellar victory, playing as CSA: 1st phase - all VPs taken, 3,500 CSA casualties and 5,300 Union casualties 2nd phase - all VPs taken, 2,900 CSA casualties, 5,900 Union casualties 3rd phase - the VP taken, 2,600 CSA casualties, 10,000 Union casualties. Could such casualties even be possible during the actual battle? In that battle during day 1 my ANV units completely devastated their AoP enemies with the AoP suffering almost as many losses as it did during the whole battle of Gettysburg from July 1 tp 3.
  3. I agree with David Fair. I think artillery of both sides is overeffective in the game. In UGG if your goal is to preserve your army while inflicting maximum casualties to the enemy army, you can do nothing but bombard enemy with artillery. While playing CSA I would put artillery forward and bomb the Union lines inflicting about 2000 casualties IN JUST A FEW HOURS - and that makes up 2/3 of all artillery casualties suffered by both sides during the whole battle. When I started playing the game, I thought artillery is shit. It looks that it is about 10 times more effective than actual on
  4. My idea: Breaking caualties to killed, wounded and missing/captured. Also, add possibility of capturing cannons.
  5. What do you think? Modern warfare is drastically different from the warfare of mid 19th century. Wars are no longer fought as a series of discrete engagements lasting for max. a few days but as a continuous combat of troops dispersed over a large area. Here you can see changes of troop dispersion from Antiquity until 1973: While there are games that portray the strategic and operational levels of ww2 fairy accurately, there are no games that combine i.e. operational and tactical levels of war. Would the UGG engine even allow this?
  6. What was it? As either side. My most one-sided victory was when I played as Confederacy (I almost never play as Union) inflicted 30,000 casualties while suffering 20,000 of my own. Not the most crushing victory - but still better than nothing.
  7. I don't think operational and strategic levels of command are needed. Goal of UG game(s) is to faithfully depict classical formation battles and not operational level of war. I dunno what developers think of this, though. Gravelotte, Mars le Tour, Borny-Colembey are very interesting and were not depicted in any game so far (the Franco-Prussian war is a massively neglected topic in media in general), so is Spicheren if you like battles on a smaller scale (30k vs 37k men). Note that it was mostly incompetence of French command that decided the outcome of these and other battles. French victo
  8. Devs said they gonna make games about every period of history - so it's all about which period will be portrayed first after the Civil War.
  9. I got an idea how we can work out what kind of game the developers should make after UGG. Dunno if they approve it or not. First in this topic the players will cast a vote about what period the next game should be. After a set period of time (a few weeks?) The poll will be over and a new topic will be opened where people will propose specific battles from that period. After that, a 3rd thread would be created where people would vote for specific battles and the winning one will be portrayed in the next game. Like it? I want the maximum possible number of people to vote in this thread.
  10. A question to developers: How do you plan to recreate ww2 or modern conflicts? The number of soldiers per 1km of frontage tended to drop sharply in late 19th and 20th centuries - from about 3500 soldiers per 1km of frontage during the ACW to about 1500 during WW1, 500 during WW2 and about 150 today - so the only solutions are to either create ridiculously large maps (10-15 times larger than UGG ones) or decreasing unit sizes... which is not good How do you plan to solve this.
  11. Hmm... From all periods? Do you also plan to recreate ww2 and modern battles? BTW: Is there a way to make a donation to support your efforts?
  12. @up I think the entire East Prussian offensive of 1914 may be more interesting - as altering the course of battles of Stallupolen and Gumbinen may alter the course of Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes. THough I'm worried that recreating such a massive campaign may be too much for the developers so they may as wel stick to Tannenberg, the most deccisive part of the campaign.
  13. Perhaps we should make a poll? It will include say, 10 best suggestions and the one that takes the most votes will be picked up by the developers.
  14. Possibility of ending the battle before the set time has passed. Once you capture all objectives, the enemy should withdraw if it sees it has no chance of winning.
  15. This is ridiculous. I recently played two single player battles and on the highest difficulty level I won both of them (first - with 16,000 Confederate casualties and 23,000 Union casualties, the second one - with 20,000 Confederate casualties and 30,000 Union casualties)
×
×
  • Create New...