Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

dagdamor1

Ensign
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dagdamor1

  1. I'm honestly ambivalent on this issue. As long as it doesn't compromise the intuitive aspect of Ultimate Generals, I'll be able to live with it. But if my infantry are able to fire until the end of the world, I won't take offense either, particularly since I personally am going to pursue a Day 2 / Day 3 victory (should it be possible) before ammunition even approaches a premium. The option of toggling the ammunition may be the best option. It may very well be divisive among the playerbase, but let's be completely honest, here. This game is about two sides of tens of thousands of Americans shooting and gutting each other over socio-political issues much more controversial than options in a video game. I believe that the benefits from the player being able to choose for the sake of their own experience outweigh the detriments of a 'divided' playerbase. If the choice is made for ammunition to become limited however, I'd expect that Ultimate Generals would make it much more of an issue for the side having the greatest difficulties with supply, such as at the Siege of Petersburg.
  2. Not exactly a question about the map, but about something that would interact with the boundaries of it. Are the arrivals of reinforcements going to be scripted or will they also be variable depending on performance and actions taken on the battlefield? For example, a message to one of the Generals advancing on the battlefield to make haste could prompt the arrival of his troops earlier than historically, but at the cost of a measure of morale and/or fatigue.
  3. My first impression is bewilderment. Bewilderment at how such a gem could have not caught my eye from October to February. I hope that Ultimate General becomes a long-lived and thoroughly successful series, because I would deeply enjoy watching Moore's Law enhancing Ultimate General like a fine wine with every new installment.
  4. This talk of 'superheroes' and able officers brings a question to my mind regarding the concept that most RTS refer to as "Veterancy." In all honesty, I don't think it could or should factor into this particular Ultimate General installment whatsoever, with only a few days of combat, but it is something to think about should a longer campaign or even the implementation of a campaign map be in the works for future installments. And I don't think Darth would likely settle for a shiny metal stripe or chevron 'magically' bestowing increased fighting or command capabilities upon the unit, perhaps something more gradual but still recognizable enough to be acknowledged and factored into the players' decisions.
  5. How much impact would the wounding or killing of a General have upon his troops? Would they affect operations within a certain range, in a certain area of the battlefield or across the entire battlefield overall? It could be possible to have a chance that a General's death be ignored in the present moment if he is forgotten in the heat of battle instead of more visible and at the forefront of his soldiers' minds. In other situations, wound or death impact could be lessened if the General's staff (provided enough of them are alive) could administer treatment or at least close ranks around the General and remove him from the immediate vicinity to prevent overwhelming morale loss, similar to what happened to Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar. But the long-term consequences of losing a General could be severe indeed, overall lack of speed or response entirely in conveying orders through a replacement unfamiliar with his new troops or impacting the entirety of the affected army because of less Generals spread thinner across the same amount of troops. Imagine four Confederate Generals killed in a single day of action, despite having made considerable overall gains on the field due to aggression or sound tactics. Perhaps in that one day, only the operations in the immediate vicinity/theater being affected, but when the news hits in the evening/night after hostilities, it inflicts a massive morale drop and capacity to command upon the entirety of the Confederates for the following day Not to mention the choice, made personally or automatically, to kill an enemy General that was wounded & captured in close-quarters combat like Armistead was. I think it would be particularly important to balance this mechanic carefully. Too little impact and the soldiers might come off as a little emotionless or unrealistic for shrugging off the loss of their commanding officer. Too much and many player strategies will cling to an approach of "General-Hunting" or "General-Killing" unless the AI is competently skilled in keeping its Generals out of harm's way, whether it be through cover, distance, protection by other units or all of the above. I'm truly impressed with your work, Darth. And here I was losing interest in what seems to be an increasingly stale genre. It seems that intuitive UI and strategic depth aren't quite mutually exclusive after all.
×
×
  • Create New...