NickAbbottt

Sign me up! i’d love to help the team develop this very awesome project 😀👍!

Sign me up! This sounds like a fantastic project. I’d love to help in the development for Darth and his team 👍

Hello Game-Labs. I love how you guys are taking tactical strategy to a whole new level with Ultimate General. I have played through the Confederate campaign to Antietam on normal and I almost (should have) won! in the last 20 mins of the battle i just lost control of the sunken road and ran out of time taking it back! Lots of memorable moments in these battles, a really great game. However, there is one or two issues I would like to raise. The first is win/loss objectives. Antietam is a good example. I repelled all attacks, held all but one "objective" location (sunken road) with my defensive line still intact by nightfall and caused significant casualties on the enemy but still lost? I checked out the real battle and discovered the battle was technically a defeat for the Confederates as they were forced to eventually withdraw in the face of losses and overwhelming numbers. But in my battle I held and caused tremendous Union casualties. Surely that would be a victory? Or am I not supposed to win the battle? The second issue is the persistent campaign. I certainly works well for the player as I have to manage losses and make hard choices on whether an attack is worth the casualties in the long run. Building my army is a fantastic aspect of the game. But it doesn't seem to work for the AI. For example, I won all battles up to Antietam and suffered 94,834 Confederate casualties but inflicted 196,891 Union casualties. I know the union had a larger manpower pool but the losses I inflicted do not seem to affect the AI armies in any way and they also have many 2 and 3 star brigades by Antietam, which would be difficult considering the number of replacements they would need. In conclusion, it feels like the "persistent campaign" is one sided. I hope this will change. Thanks for your time. Nick

I for one bought this game for the historical and role playing feel of commanding a warship/trade ship in the 18th century. If I want to fight ships till they explode and marvel at my magnificence on my stat page, I play WOWS. I believe the cost of crew to be a welcome and essential addition to the world the devs are trying to create. I do feel it needs adjusting as does all the economy aspects of the game and the devs have stated that they are planning on an overhaul of the economy in the near future. So for now I am content to play and TEST (yes this is an alpha and we are testing the game) until new content is added, hopefully helping to make an even better game experience. An example of why I think the crew cost system helps the devs create the world of 18th century naval warfare and economic enterprise. The other day, myself in a frigate and another in a Constitution attacked a pirate in a Surprise. He tried to run but was driven toward the shore. The constitution was in position to fire broadsides so the Surprise turned away from the shore and tried to run upwind and use his speed advantage, leaving the Constitution lagging behind. I fortunately guessed his intentions when he started coming about and was able to lay across his escape path to windward. I fired a single double broadside into his hull and, upon seeing his position hopeless, struck his colours. Now this could have dragged on and on with a drawn out chase, but to save his crew (as they cost quite a bit as opposed to being actual lives) and all our time, he surrendered. Making the whole event a satisfying and pretty damn realistic engagement. I myself surrendered a Bellona to 2 Trincomalees after they cut my rigging to shreds and got in a few good rakes. The fight lasted a good amount of time and I tried to cause enough damage for them to withdraw, but, seeing my crew numbers start to dwindle, I ultimately chose to surrender to save the majority of my crew (as replacing 650 crew is damned expensive!). I could have remained there taking fire for many many more minutes wasting everyone's time and losing all my crew! Again, a satisfying and realistic turn of events. I agree that after crew loses in missions you can come out with not much reward, so i now play smart rather than rushing straight in to keep my crew alive! Also, playing fleet missions, particularly with friends can seriously reduce the amount of crew loss and damage and earn you a tidy profit (especially after demasting, graping and boarding a santi!). I'm not saying you have to play with others, but in a multiplayer game it does make sense. Regards Nick

That answers my questions, thank you.

OK, so as long as I am a landowner (Lord) I can propose a vote? Does the vote have requirements to pass? Such as, at least 30% of a nation's players must cast a vote or the vote is invalid. And finally, can I propose votes as often as I like or will there be a limit as to how many I can initiate per month?

Hello Admin. Could you give a simple example of how the system works. Let's say I wish my nation (Britain) to have peace with Spain. What requirements must I meet to propose this vote? Also, how do I actually create this as a vote? Thanks

Could the British naval ensign be changed to the red ensign? This is the correct ensign for royal navy ships operating in the north Atlantic / Caribbean. The white ensign for the channel fleet/med fleet and the blue was for south atlantic/indian/pacific. Many thanks

Hello Devs. This is a post I had in another toipc, but as i'm actually making a suggestion, I thought i'd place it here. Regarding crew numbers available for certain duties; I'm going to use HMS Victory as it is an excellent and well documented example. The crew of HMS Victory had 821 men at Trafalgar. 146 of these were Royal marines. (Royal marines were often used to help serve the guns on the upper deck until needed for boarding). 31 ship's boys (some landsmen were also used as powder monkeys along with the boys). Leaving around 650 sailors and officers. 21 midshipmen 10 officers including the Captain 17 warrant officers 43 supply and Admiral's staff supernumeraries Around 550 men left. 120 men required to make full sail. (obviously not needed in battle with reduced sail but leave it there anyway as a max required) So we have around 450 men to man 106 guns. If all guns were used then a crew of 4.2 men would be available for each gun. Lets call it 5. If the crew were to man one side only as was the norm, then 8-10 men would be available for each gun. (the Royal marines manning the weatherdeck guns have replaced the landsmen assigned as powder monkeys so no need to take any of that into account) As many people and the devs have stated, the larger guns require around 10 men to man. This is optimum, as more people would just get in the way and slow things down. Therefore it is clear that the crew a ship had available to man the guns were sufficient to man only 1 broadside efficiently (and the British were well reputed for being efficient with their guns). It is possible to man a gun with 5 or 6 men but obviously this would seriously reduce the speed of loading. It was unusual in battle for a ship to have to fight both sides simultaneously, but if it happened a gun crew could certainly be split. Therefore, the max number of crew that can be assigned to the guns should be the max required to man 1 side. Why would you take crew away from other duties? Sails are your engines and additional means of steering. You certainly wouldn't want to take away those in battle! As you take casualties, then you may wish to transfer crew to help work the guns if you want to win the fight, or to sails to maneuver/ close with the enemy or make a run for it. (which is why I like the inclusion of the new crew mechanics) I think that for sails, a minimum crew should always be maintained (if possible) at the expense of guns if necessary (as by that point you're guns wont be doing much anyway). Say a quarter of the normal requirement is always maintained no matter your focus. I would also like to see the ability to designate whether the assigned gun crews are to work the port, starboard or both sides. This way, the vessel has the option of fighting one side at maximum efficiency or both sides with the obvious penalties (reload time and traverse speed). I hope i've made a good case and that this is taken into consideration by the devs.