Myes!
-
Posts
90 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Myes!
-
-
And please tell me the PC version won't have inferior graphic design to the iPad version, this time around.
-
It is not about winning so much as it is about the experience itself.
I have no understanding, and minimal respect for this.
How about a compromise? The game already has an option to allow the AI to cheat, giving it various stats-bonuses. How about an option that gives the AI stats-penalties, as well? The closest thing this game would have to a traditional "Easy Mode", in other words?
This could allow Nick Thomadis to keep overpowering the CSA because "realism", but the rest of us could still get an enjoyable experience. Everyone wins.
-
I certainly don't lose as Union and say: " That's awesome, I lost, what a great bit of historical accuracy ". I play to try to win.
I agree so very, very much. The current state of the game, (yes. Game.), is simply not fun. It needs to be fixed. -
I personally never thought I would get complains from players that they do not like losing from the AI so often. When I was modding, every time I forced the AI to be a better opponent I was getting positive feedback... now I get complains.
That's the thing, Nick Thomadis - this isn't the niche playerbase of something as obscure and non-mainstream as a hardcore mod. Real people in the real world do not enjoy losing. This is not why we play video games. You'll do well to remember this.
-
I just played a match of Pickett's Charge as Union against a "Risky" CSA opponent.
Holy shit, what an un-enjoyable experience.
What a thoroughly un-fun, un-enjoyable, frustrating, poorly balanced experience.
The Union had zero chance at even holding back the CSA. None whatsoever. I frankly sat there, fighting the urge to punch my monitor out of sheer frustration. I never get that genuinely angry at video games. This shit just doesn't work, Nick Thomadis. It's not a fun experience. It needs to be fixed. The CSA would hold their own through every firefight out of sheer endurance, charge the Union brigades, win easily, and rout the Union brigades so hard they removed themselves from the map, entirely. If the CSA ever routed or fell back, they would do so for exactly three seconds before immediately returning to the fray.
And this was Pickett's Charge. The famous overwhelming CSA defeat.
This just needs to go away, Nick Thomadis. I really have no idea of what you were thinking with this one. And I don't even mean that as hyperbole - I genuinely wish I was a bug inside your brain that could work out just what the crap was the process of thinking that lead to this horrid insanity. -
This update has overpowered the CSA to the point of unplayability. I've watched Federal troops with 75% cover be demolished by Confederate Infantry that is not even within firing range. I genuinely feel guilty for using Federal infantry t this point, because no matter where I place them or what I do, any brigade that is fired upon is guaranteed to be ravaged.
This.
Fucking this.
-
1
-
-
Wow. You sure seem to like powering up the CSA.
-
All of these Napoleonic requests are too much. There are many other wars during the age of line battles other than the Napoleonic wars. Why not a game set during the Nine Years War, War of the Spanish Succession, Great Northern War, Scanian War (going further back it would be necessary to bring in Pike units), or any other war other than the American Civil War or Napoleonic wars? If you consider yourself a fan of history and a wargamer, you need to expand your horizons.Also the market has MANY games already dealing with the Napoleonic era. Histwar Grognards, it without doubt the best in this field.
I absolutely agree. Why these people seem to be convinced the world needs another fucking game about Waterloo or Austerlitz is beyond me. There are so many extremely interesting battles from so many interesting eras out there. Why some people seem intent on having the shit be further beat out of the exact same dead horse, I will never be able to understand or respect.
-
1
-
-
So-called political correctness is just decent people showing each other respect.
Ha. Ha.
No.
-
2
-
-
Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results.
This is exactly the reaction I was expecting from you guys.
Good form. You have our respect.
I wish more developers would have the integrity and balls that you guys just displayed, and take a stand against social hysteria as opposed to bowing to it. Good news is; if the recent history of games like Hatred are any indication, you putting your foot down has probably increased your sales more than caving ever would.
-
Yes, they will be.
That's interesting.
-
Hi Razgirz! As you've guessed, the tablets hardware limitation forced us to present an alternative release of UGG for these devices. For the next battle we are focusing to add more new mechanics/features than transfer more existing features from PC to tablets.
So the PC and iPad versions of that battle will be different from each other?
-
I have a question about this. The way people are talking about it is confusing me. When people are saying the "graphics" are better on the ipad version, are they referring to the UI only. Or, are the actual game graphics of the terrain, brigades, etc better?
My bad. The term "Aesthetics" is probably more appropriate. I've edited my original comment.
That said; I'm essentially referring to anything but the actual battle visuals, which, from what I can tell, look identical. I'm talking about the campaign menu, the pre-battle overview maps, the unit interface-buttons - everything. Some have said the audio is better on the iPad version, as well, but I can't comment on that.
I think one of the most stand-out problems is how violently this clashes with the much more polished-looking battles. They could almost be different games, which makes the game look amateurish and incomplete. Contrast this with the iPad-version, where the whole package is polished to a tee, and goes together beautifully; looking completely professional. It's embarrassing to watch.
UI was heavily inspired by Minecraft - one of the most popular indie games on the planet. Some might argue that ours is a little better.Some might argue that the iPad-version of this game looks significantly better than the PC-version, despite it being on a significantly weaker platform, which is the point of my post. Some might further argue that Minecraft's UI and menu actually fits with the aesthetic of the main game, unlike yours.
For some perspective on my point of view; I've had this problem since the beginning. It bothers me whenever I play. It did, however, occur to me that - like others have said - it's understandable on account of it being a small indie-game with a limited budget and presumably a small team. This is why I never bothered to post about it.
It's only now, upon seeing how the mobile version - of all things - looks significantly more like the professional product the game should ideally have looked like all along, that my ire is raised enough for me to bother making a case about it. If the iPad-version hadn't been looking the way it does, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
It needs to be fixed.
-
The new patch was just released, and I couldn't help but notice that the game still uses the ugly, placeholder-looking interface it has been using since beta.
Delightful.
A number of people have been requesting that the infinitely more polished and professional-looking aesthetics from the iPad version be ported over to the PC-version, but have heard nothing from the developers. This is becoming increasingly annoying. It's frankly embarrassing to see the aesthetics for the bloody iPad - essentially a large iPhone - look more professional and attractive than the frankly amateurish aesthetics of the PC version. Those hideous, grey concrete slab-looking brigade command buttons. The campaign menu. The pre-battle campaign overview map. It looks amateur-hour, and completely clashes with the otherwise polished-looking actual battle-gameplay. Other posters have even pointed out that the sound is supposedly better on the iPad version, but I can't comment on that.
This needs to change. It really does.-
1
-
-
So... where is the patch? Also, can we expect aesthetic improvements for the PC version? The iPad version looks way more polished in my opinion.
Yes. This. So fucking much.
-
1
-
-
Like someone else said; why not simply use the "Beta"-option in the STEAM properties-menu? Why bother with an entirely separate program that only a select few have? I genuinely don't understand your logic.
PS.
Will the sound effects from the I-pad version be included? The muskets and battle sounds sounded really good.And the UI. It still looks very beta and placeholder and generally quite shit. It's genuinely embarrassing to see the much less technologically advanced iPad get a superior game. This shit needs to change, Darth. This really isn't good enough.
-
1
-
-
It's not ready yet, patience, they're working on it.
I don't think that was the OP's question, GShock. I'm fairly sure he worked out the "It's not ready, yet"-bit, himself.
-
The graphical user interface is much improved and aesthetically pleasing and is more suitable for tablet users.
Can we expect that for the PC-version? Currently, a lot of it looks a bit placeholder and generally shit.
-
Still waiting for that response.
-
Why is the iPad version so much prettier-looking than the PC version? Are you going to update the PC version with the iPad version's superior aesthetics and UI?
-
1
-
-
Everything the same except for 3 things
1 changes needed to work on iPad 2
2 Different design approach mostly caused by tablet market demands
3 No mouseThere looks to be more differences in the iPad version than that.
-
Christ; this keeps drawing out.
-
I'm so sick of all the Waterloos and Antietams. Christ; sometimes it's like there were only six or seven battles fought in all of human history.
Couldn't we have something less well-known and beaten to death, for a change? A battle from one of the European succession-wars, or something like that?-
1
-
-
Was a roll-back really neccessary?
What happened to the names written on the terrain?
in General Discussions
Posted
In Gettysburg, the names of the tactical points and so forth would appear written directly onto the map terrain. This was a very aesthetically cool feature, and one that's missing from Civil War. Any plans to reinstate it?