llcw08
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by llcw08
-
-
With all the International support that this game has; shouldn't we band together and bombard Apple with complaints? -Louis.
-
First, I have always Loved this Game! [i have been a tester for about 2 years.]
Nick Thomadis’ early premise for a New RTS game with a Super DarthMod AI was both Inspiring and Exciting. [A premise that Nick and his Team have worked very hard to make a Reality for all his fans.]
‘Inspiring’ because of Nick’s Bold and Principled response to the Shabby treatment Nick got from Creative Assembly as their Lead Modder.
‘Exciting’ because Nick’s idea for a New RTS game would have the Iconic DarthMod AI and Atmosphere, and it would add a ‘4th Day’ to the historic Gettysburg Battle. [The ‘4th Day’ scenario that I have lived in My Dreams!]
Ultimate General: Gettysburg as a work in progress: Suggestions. [From game play and YouTube observations; December 17th 2014.]
The Briefing Map: Not Interactive.
Suggestions: Hover the cursor over map points to reveal; VP’s, Unit Types and Identify Map features like Hills and Ridges.
Battle Map Landmarks: a keystroke to call up all map features, in Bold. No One on YouTube knows where the Hills and Ridges are!
Artillery LoS: Too Subtle! If an area is blacked out; let it be Blacked Out. As well, if an Arty unit is Blocked by terrain; show that its LoS is Blacked Out.
Highly Accomplished and Widely followed YouTube gamers are still trying to Aim artillery and do Not see that their Arty is being Blocked by terrain features!
The game needs a device that tells the Player When and Where reinforcements are coming, on a Map.
It seems that GameLab has a Philosophical dread of an interactive, small, Radar Map. I do not understand. [Aesthetics?]
-
1
-
-
This is the best version of UG:G Ever! The beta versions were super.
I am very happy to report that my Windows 8.1 system has Not had Any Freezes since October 15th [v0.97 rev 6323 was the fix] ‘Sterner’ said that my problem was in the sound/music system…
I do have an unrelated, consistent problem with UG:G [v0.97 rev 6323 through 1.01, November 16th version]
Map Resolution and Legibility: The problem is very Distracting and Troublesome when playing on my 40” HDTV in 1080p.
- Map Resolution and Legibility is very good on my 19” monitor; while I’m 3’ from the screen.
-When I put the game on my 40” HDTV; I only get a 30”game picture/map?
-I Cannot read the Unit Numbers on the 30” Map; sitting on my couch 7’ away. I have to get up, and Stand 3-4’ from the screen and Dart Back to the couch to work the mouse...
Another Consistent Map Problem I have Always had: Finding my Generals, Finding specific Types of Units and Reading/Finding hilltops with Victory Points.
The VP problem is complicated when I have a lot of units crowded on a VP hilltop…
Could there be a Key-Stroke solution to these problems?
-To find Generals, Artillery or Victory Points; ‘G+F’, A+F and ‘V+P+F’? In chat mode: 'alt+G+F' [a 3 finger command?]
The requested information would ‘jump out’ and be ‘superimposed’ over surrounding information.
-
Well, I've played through countless hours ( about 10 or so) of Ultimate General: Gettysburg, this is also by far my favorite battle during the civil war, considering all the things that could have happened, and this game did an awesome job of showing what would or could of happened, but now that we have beaten it, and have got all the battles for each day, and are so good we can win on the first day as both union and confederates, that has us wondering, what is the next game or battle going to be. feel free to post your opinions below and hopefully Darth will take a look at them, but that also has me wondering, what about an Ultimate General where you don't play a specific battle but you go through a campaign making decisions and the AI tries to complete a map goal, like take over Richmond, and when the two army's collide the closest battlefield, whether it being Fredericksburg, or Shiloh, Antietam, etc. you fight there, and then you'll have more maneuverability when it comes to choosing your fights, but that would also require a system of getting more troops, so then maybe you ask for some recruitment, it doesn't tell you how many men you'll get but at certain dates it will recruit certain units, like the 20th Maine, or the Irish Brigade, and so on and so forth, but honestly i would be fine with just another battlefield type game, so like it's been said Second verse as same as the First.
I am pleased with this idea; up to a point.
A ground breaking, successful game should be expanded. More campaigns; perhaps even to expand the player's scope from the tactical [4 days at Gettysburg] to the strategic [American Civil War: 1861-1865]. The strategic game could run with surprise 'pop-up' battles. [Cold Harbor or Fredericksburg]
However, David Fair has taken great pains to explain to me that the American, 19th Century systems of military recruitment/training were semi-corrupt on the State level and entirely inefficient on the Federal level.
It took over a year to train recruits up to Division competency once they were incorporated into the Federal command from State militias. From the time those boys were recruited by their Governor in their hometowns; it could be over 2 years before they joined a battle!
In this war, even a Major General over the Army of the Potomac could be relieved of his command, because he was waiting for 300,000 more troops. Finally, Major General Grant went to war with the army that he had. Waiting for another Iron Brigade from Wisconsin and Indiana was not 'practicable'.
I agree with michaelsmithern; expanded versions of this game, in any variety of incarnations, is highly anticipated. More, bigger, faster games!
-
1
-
-
I don't know what is going on... I bought UGG through Steam weeks ago. So, I should get the latest patch when I open the game. Right?
So, today I open UGG, and it still will not give me "Day 4"; fine, it's coming, later. I select "Day 3" the menu is claggy and stutters.
I'm Union Forces. From the 1st; the game freezes and stutters; every 30 seconds!
This is the worst that I have seen. The game is Unplayable.
I am switching to ETW DarthMod; maybe my pc is messed up. Not likely, because it has been Ok all day.
Yeah, I think my problem is my new SSD; it's within 16Gbs to being full. ETW DarthMod is getting a little claggy too...
-
Technopiper,
Did you watch the video you posted?
The speaker repeatedly states Lee's goal was the destruction of the AoP as a psychological blow to end the war.
Ending the war was the political goal of the campaign.
Suggest you take a look at the presentation from minute 12 through 16 where the speaker states, "there are only two things you need to know to understand Lee during the ACW".
Point 1 - Lee needed to destroy the AoP.
Point 2 - Lee was on the clock and needed to destroy the AoP quickly.
In fact the slides behind the speaker state:
"Seeking destruction of the federal AoP as a psychological blow...& time is not on his side!"
Lee needed to drive the Northern "will" for war to zero.
Lincoln needed to drive the Southern "resources" for war to zero by destroying the ANV.
Lee's goal was not, as you state above, "Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering too many casualties."
This is a true statement in some wars at some points in time.
But your point is not aligned with the political or military reality of the ACW and the Gettysburg Campaign in particular.
Lee wanted and needed the "utter destruction and annihilation of the AoP" to quote the presenter.
Lee's goal was political recognition of the South and he wanted to accomplish this during the Gettysburg Campaign by ending the war.
Specifically referenced by the speaker were Lee's comments to his wife after Fredericksburg and to General Pender after Chancellorsville.
You've turned the logic and central point of the presentation on its head by stating the goal was to drive your opponent away from the field.
Was your comment was intended to reflect the Northern strategy - win by holding the field?
If so, this argument also makes no sense.
Lincoln was incensed that the ANV was not destroyed before it reached the Potomac River and could cross into Virginia.
The Gettysburg Campaign was about the politics of ending the war - for both sides.
Unfortunately, Meade missed the memo on the importance of destroying the ANV.
Which is why Grant was promoted over Meade.
Grant understood the political goal.
Neither side accomplished its political goal during the Gettysburg Campaign.
Lee because he failed to destroy the AoP.
Meade because he failed to understand Lincoln's political goal.
Victory points are a "pathetic fallacy" for the ACW.
By attributing VPs to locations you turn the ACW on its head militarily, politically, and historically.
For the North the ACW was about exhausting Southern resources.
It was impossible to break the will of the South to fight.
The ANV was down to less than 25,000 men when it surrendered at Appomattox.
Militarily the ANV was between to vastly superior Union armies.
The ANV did not have any logistical base to fall back on for support after the loss of Richmond.
Despite this the ANV was retreating westward and attempting to fight on.
Had Lee been able to march rapidly enough to get to his supplies before the federal cavalry the war would have continued until the ANV disappeared through attrition - roughly 20 days later based on the ANV desertion rate.
For the South the ACW was about destroying the Northern will to fight.
It was impossible for the South to destroy the resource base of the North.
The closest the South came to disrupting the Northern resource base was with commerce raiding.
Ultimate General Gettysburg is a super, Super game. The AI is truly Ground Breaking for this genre! UGG is an island of brilliant, strategic Action in an ocean of prosaic "shoot-em-ups" and car crashes.
However, over the past year my 1 Running critique has been the "victory" system. No matter if it is a "Historical" game or a "Custom" game; it is Still Gettysburg during the American Civil War...
General Lee's strategy and ambitions are well stated above. Lincoln's early strategy for the War was embodied by General Grant's actions as Commander of the Union Army, late in the War. Neither Lee's nor Lincoln's Strategy involved holding or taking "Victory Points"! General Lee needed Spectacular Headlines of his Genius in the Northern papers and in Europe. General Grant was like a bulldog holding a fierce Bull by the nose with his Teeth; maintain contact and Out Last the other guy. Gen. Lee was like an elegant saber, Gen. Grant was a incessant, persistent ax... "Victory Points"?
I understand that it is Now late in the game (As it were.) But, could there be Some Allowance/Option in the game for a non-victory point campaign?
Yeah, I get it; the code-writing Geeks are pulling their teeth out in frustration! (They have done a Super job of work this past year.) Perhaps there could be an option where the VPs "weight" could be "tamped down"? (Not so bad, guys? Guys...?)
-
2
-
-
I don't know what is going on... I bought UGG through Steam weeks ago. So, I should get the latest patch when I open the game. Right?
So, today I open UGG, and it still will not give me "Day 4"; fine, it's coming, later. I select "Day 3" the menu is claggy and stutters.
I'm Union Forces. From the 1st; the game freezes and stutters; every 30 seconds!
This is the worst that I have seen. The game is Unplayable.
I am switching to ETW DarthMod; maybe my pc is messed up. Not likely, because it has been Ok all day.
-
"I think the aim of the battle should be to inflict as much damage on your opponent without suffering to many casualties."
Not necessarily. Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering to many casualties. All battles are fought for political purposes: to make good headline, win popular support. By 1863, there was a great outrage against the war in the north. Lee knew he needed a couple more victories near the Union's heart, and Lincoln would have to sue for peace. Here's an Army War College lecture on that very subject:
This has always been the basis of my Union Army strategy in UGG; Bleed the CSA and Delay the CSA.
Lose what troops it takes, but maintain a force In Front of them! The Union Army has a Bigger force coming. (They know this.)
I order my Union Forces to Fall back, give a ridge, hold a ridge, Hold Flanks, maintain Contact and keep the rear secure! It's Pennsylvania hill country. It's like Stalingrad! There is Alway another ridge.
But, Hour after Hour of game-play the AI tells me that I am losing! Because I failed to hold XY Hill! I do not understand this game logic.
For the CSA to win UGG; they must divide the Union Forces from their reinforcements, and destroy those forces in detail. (Full Stop.) The battle is Not about hill tops! It IS about Position, and CSA casualties.
-
Color Bearers: While yes; research for each regiment, division, and brigade would take some time, this would better all around for cosmetics.
Covers/Caps/Hats: Where are the Iron Brigades kickin' black caps? Or the Bucktails awesome bucktails?
Not on the cosmetic side; but the general game set up is better based for division or brigade combat, rather than the entire Army. Think of it this way; you can shrink the map a bit, like Day 1, let us fight on Little Round Top, Culps Hill, Devils Den, The Wheatfield, The High Water Mark/Pickett's Charge, and so on, so forth. This would make the battles more interesting, less confusing, and possibly give them a better flow.
There were what, 35 Union Generals plus another 5 high ranking Colonels? , and 20 Confederate Generals in all? This idea does go with the games theme after all...
I Love this idea! Battles Within the battle! It would be a Huge, whole other layer; but a Super Idea for an UGG "add-on"! Oh Yes, the 20th Maine on Little Round Top!
-
The game is getting better and more Super.
The game-play is Fast and Intense! The AI is Spectacular! ETW and NTW players Wish they had AI like This!
One problem; I bought the game from Steam and I still can not play "Day 4".
Also, I have several problems with the game-play; all of which could be solved with a Small Radar Window.
1) I can not find my generals during battle.
2) Moving around the battlefield is "Claggy". I have a good system with 6GB of memory, a 20 inch monitor and a top tier graphics card. I am using a keyboard and a mouse. But I can not "Flit" from my left flank to my right. Nor, can I see that I am being flanked on the right when I am fighting on my Left Flank! This is Not Good.
3) I waste A Lot of fighting-time just looking around the perimeters of the map! I do not expect to find anything, but I Have To Know what is there!
4) Radar Window, Radar Window and Radar Window.
Is there a Tutorial to teach me how to Aim my Artillery? I will pay $2.99 for that in a Flash!
Also, how do I Keep units from going into Melee? Can the AI make my flanks Smarter?
Typically I put 2 units on each flank to block or stall an enemy charge on my flanks. However, No sooner do I return from the Other flank to find that My Blocking Force is out of Position and getting their Ass Kicked in a Melee!
This happened to me several times during my Union defence of Pickett's Charge. My left flank Consistently charged down on CSA forces, got enveloped and overwhelmed in a 2nd CSA attack. I wanted them up on the ridge to Bleed those forces. Hold, Delay; do Not get engage and Do Not get your ass kicked. They just do not listen.
Any help?
-
2
-
-
Things I would love to see;
- Fife and Drum as per post #1.
- Clickable Mini-map as per post #2, though preferably only showing your current LoS, so with a moving fog of war.
- Colour Parties for each brigade, including flags, officers and musicians. Possibly a morale penalty for having the flag captured in melée?
- Blood on the dead sprites, sometimes I find it hard to differentiate casualties from live troops when there are two lines having away at each other. Something similar to the Close Combat death sprites would be nice, it doesn't need to be over the top gashes of crimson and spurts of arterial fluid, just some red on the uniform and a small puddle to really make it stand out.
- Morale Bar added to each Brigade, something easy to see at a glance. For example, a bar going from green-yellow-red next to each flag as Morale goes from 100% to 0%.
- Terrain that is easier to 'read', more pronounced so that is is easier to tell what cover your men are in and where exactly things like hills are.
It seems that earlier versions of UGG had more pronounced terrain gradations. The LoS "blackout" is not a good overall guide to terrain highs and lows. "Lighter" is "Higher" and "Darker" is "Lower". Vertical lines are "Cliffs"; go around them.
-
Clickable mini-map please. For swift camera movement about the battlefield.
Yeah, I like this too. Even Though it is a small map; it does not fit 100% on my screen. In the heat of battle; I can not be bothered with 6 or 12 words of text as a noticed of reinforcements. I am dyslexic, and while fighting on a map; I become Very Dyslexic! A mini-map would work for me.
-
I would say this should be part of an eventual larger strategic layer as on a tactical level it's simply going to be throwing in a sudden task of playing the quartermaster as well as the General. Rather keep such on a larger strategic level where there might be more to gained from fiddling around with that.
After reading most of the Forum's comments; I like Imperial Dane's the best! Number 1; it is concise. And his insights reflect my take on this issue. Yeah, limited ammo is a big deal for "real-play" vs "game-play" AI problems/issues.
I like Imperial Dane's suggestion that "limit ammo" could be an Additional layer or improvement, Later. It's almost July, Nick and his team have their eyes on the Prize; KISS is an important principle.
-
Thank you for your up to now super support.
Early 2014 you will be playing Ultimate General: Gettysburg!
We wish you a happy new year, healthy, prosperous and interesting...
in your real life and inside the world of your favourite games.
I am Soo In! Thanks, Nick!
-
I really am cheered by your statement: “a serious wargame alternative, which picks up where CA left us back in 2004.” (IBM passed on Steve Jobs.)
I believe that UGG is an Exponentially “next generation” game!
Thanx - same to you Great Master!
Let 2014 be the year, where old TW-veterans finally get's a serious wargame alternative, which picks up where CA left us back in 2004.
-
The Gettysburg Battle has a unique place in military history; Gettysburg Clearly marks the CSA’s “high water mark” in its hope to politically exist.
Surrounding this battle site was an enormous Union capability in that theater; that was never brought to bear. Alexander the Great would not have started Gen. Lee’s northern campaign.
If Gen. Lee “wins” this battle; he still gets annihilated by the Union Army from Washington D.C and Gen. Meade’s AoP. Everybody knows where the remains of the ANV is going! Even the French government.
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).
The Gettysburg Battle has a unique place in military history; Gettysburg Clearly marks the CSA’s “high water mark” in its hope to politically exist.
Surrounding this battle site was an enormous Union capability in that theater; that was never brought to bear. Alexander the Great would not have started Gen. Lee’s northern campaign.
If Gen. Lee “wins” this battle; his army still gets annihilated by the Union Army from Washington D.C And Gen. Meade’s AoP. Everybody knows where the remains of the ANV would go after "winning" Gettysburg! Even the French government.
I have always suspected that Gen. Lee's last northern campaign was "fey" on his part; a suicide of his flawed cause by honorable combat. Pickett’s Charge was the climax of Gen. Lee’s ambitions for that suicide campaign. Gen. Hood, to the day he died; was suspect and critical of Gen. Lee’s mindset at Gettysburg.
But, the military genius that was Gen. Lee; he failed to fail, completely.
-
Yes, defiantly!
I see what the Art People are going at; Get Rid of the Clutter.
But the “Option 2” art should have the unit icon Superimposed Over a Flag. The “icon only” look is too sterile, clinical. The graphics need National Passion.
“Two birds”; we have the Clear makings of US and CA lines/units with icons; Each icon over a background of their Flag!
Icons superimposed over the flags. Just a piece of those iconic flags; gives a lot of information.
Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.
We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.
The basic idea we up to now follow is this:
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.
When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.
So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:
The question is, which you would prefer to have in game? Make your vote please asap!
Note:
This is very early concept art, so please do not take for granted that these will be final visuals. We would like you to only focus on what would appeal to you more as a player.
To include flags or to remove to have more clean interface?
Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.
We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.
The basic idea we up to now follow is this:
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.
When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.
So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:
Yes, defiantly!
I see what the Art People are going at; Get Rid of the Clutter.
But the “Option 2” art should have the unit icon Superimposed Over a Flag. The “icon only” look is too sterile, clinical. The graphics need National Passion.
“Two birds”; we have the Clear makings of US and CA lines/units with icons; Each icon over a background of their Flag!
Icons superimposed over the flags. Just a piece of those iconic flags; gives a lot of information.
-
Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.
We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.
The basic idea we up to now follow is this:
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).
The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.
When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.
So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:
The question is, which you would prefer to have in game? Make your vote please asap!
Note:
This is very early concept art, so please do not take for granted that these will be final visuals. We would like you to only focus on what would appeal to you more as a player.
To include flags or to remove to have more clean interface?
I like the Flags with Icons. Perhaps, I could Easily toggle it On an Off.
I gotta be able to fine my guys Quickly!
I also Love the Natural look of the Battle Map!
-
The idea of natural and manmade map features interacting with how a battle evolves is very cool.
During Pickett’s Charge the Union guns knocked some holes in the high spilt rail fence along the Emmetsburg Road. The charging 12 thousand Confederate troops did not “bulldoze” that tall fence; they Lined Up to go through the Holes! They were under the Close fire of the Union guns. Historians have found a lot of battle debris on that side of Emmetsburg Road.
I also like the idea of being able to see where the peak of a ridge is. Perhaps some shading or shadows on the terrain map would lead to the Player to intuitively know where the peak is.
As for officers in the field knowing what a military crest is and using it or not; that is part of the ‘dance’ of battle.
Gen. Sickles left the position Gen. Meade assigned him on Seminary Ridge and took up disastrous positions in “The Bloody Wheatfield”. Later that day, Col. Joshua Chamberlain left his position, and successfully led one of the few bayonet charges of the war down Little Round Top. He was ordered to hold his position “to the last man”. Both men received the Medal of Honor for their actions that day.
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.
-
As for a LOS battle map; at Gettysburg in 1863 there were plenty of high points overlooking the area. Gen. Buford used the tower of the seminary on Seminary Ridge the morning of day one. On the 2nd day of battle, General Longstreet had to backtrack and reroute his troops to their attack posistion, because they were spotted by the Union Army’s semaphore post from Little Round Top.
Gen. Meade had pretty good tactical intel during the battle. Gen. Lee had to run on guts and intuition for most of those 4 days.
The map looks great but knowing the topography over the next hill is a huge advantage historical leaders seldom enjoyed. Military balloons were employed during the Civil War to help reduce this problem; but, at Gettysburg neither side deployed balloons during the battle. I'd almost like to see the LOS control how much of the map I can see. This puts recon at a premium. Additionally, it makes Jeb Stuart relevant/critical and why Lee needed him during the early days of the battle.
See: "Why military balloons were not used at Gettysburg"
http://www.yorkblog.com/cannonball/2011/12/31/military-ballooning-at-the-january-harrisburg-civil-war-round-table/ -
Admin’s desire to keep the cards clean is on point.
Clicking on an icon or information window should allow the Player to dig into the source or metric of that information. The depth of these layers of information is very Enriching to the game Player.
I have some additional thoughts for the 4 points at the end of his comments regarding: Cover, Morale, Fatigue and other things one cannot judge from the texts of cards and visual representations that should be on the UI.
What if a lot of Players are dyslectic?
Audio: Many dyslectics compensate for their challenges with text by being very keen listeners.
1) Cover: 12 guys walking down a dirt road at night are almost invisible and inaudible. 1500 guys walking stealthily down a dirt road at night sounds like a thousand guys walking.
A thousand small Noises can travel a surprising distance.
2) Moral and Fatigue: Think of “Henry V” visiting his troops the Night Before the Battle of Agincourt. Henry, in disguise, found his troops; sick, cold, wet and road-weary. But, they believed their King righteous and were willing to wade through thousands of royal knights, just to Get Home!
Henry listened to the mumblings and grumblings of his troops.
3) The UI should be “over rich”; offering or bombarding the Player with a variety of “informations”.
Wanted to shed a little bit more light on the UI concept and hear your feedback..
Foundation principles
- UI is minimalistic - no clutter, no noise.
- Detailed information is 1 click away
- Even more detailed information is 2 clicks away
- Most information is already on the map and redundant information is dropped from the UI
How it might work
For example Action (Swords) button..
You already see who you are fighting against on the game screen. And in most cases it is enough. So you only see this on the top of the screen
Now if you want more information you click on the block of information in the left top corner and you will then see this
And further if you click on swords you will see more info on the enemy unit
This concept covers most elements on the UI.. minimal in the beginning, detailed after a click or two
Clicking on timer opens controls of speed
Clicking on options opens up more options
Clicking on the battle flow opens up more info
Where we have differences in opinions inside the team is what information is important and which should be guessed from the visuals
- For example cover.. Cover is definitely visible on the screen. you see if your unit on the hill or in the forest. If this is true then it could be possible to drop cover from the UI because players sees them, And we have more space as a result.
- Morale is similar. You see blinking flag on the map, or fully white flag when unit is running, If it is enough to understand, then we can free space on the UI for more important things.
- Things you cannot judge from the visuals of course should be on the UI - for example Fatigue.
-
"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"
David Fair’s insights are Spot On.
I’m not sure what I’m advocating here. There are several separate genres of games; with widely different aesthesis, but most gamers chris-cross genres, A Lot.
Is it all about The Hunt and Not the Kill?
“It is well that war is so terrible; lest we should grow too fond of it.” (Gen. Robert E. Lee)
Battles should be risky and exhilarating. Even when heavily favored to win; the Player must be drawn in, amused, pleased, entertained and at risk to get Mauled or Lose. All at the same time. Humor and innocent surprises should be part of the conflict. Battle is a Peak Experience.
Yes, there should be a lot of logistical and tactical unit-card type battle preparation. But the battle should have its own “life”. Gettysburg started in the wrong place and at the wrong time for everybody.
I advocate additional “Battle Stimuli” to engage and create immediacy for the Player.
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.
[UPDATE 26-6-2015 Restored on AppStore] Our game has been removed from AppStore
in General Discussions
Posted
This cannot be Considered remedy/response to the current, ethical climate in the US.
I cannot believe this 'inside-the-box', cut and run response from Apple. -Louis.