Tormidal
-
Posts
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Tormidal
-
-
"A" "S" "D" "W" when used in chat will also move the map up down left and right while in chat.
Yeah, that happens as well. Any button hotkey is still active while the chat is up. The "m" key was just the example i used.
-
Quick feedback:
Having the chat input open doesn't stop hotkeys from being activated. (Typing an 'm' in chat will activate the topography.)
Chat doesn't allow for punctuation or symbols of any sort.
Unit counts/symbols disappear when too close to the edge.
Cavalry is much more balanced in this patch; congrats.
Artillery targeting is fixed, this was fantastic.
Most battles still seemed to be pitched towards the CSA, but ill keep playing and see if thats the case in the new multiplayer battles.Game is extremely unfriendly to players using a laptop trackpad. Its hard to rotate divisions and move troops around. 10/10 would not do again. lol.
-
Hello all,
Thanks for voting. It seems that custom battles need to be unlocked. And so they will be. More multiplayer maps will be available in the upcoming patch and will be also playable in single player custom battle list.
Are there additional features planned to be added from this point on?
-
No.
What incentive do players have to play through the whole thing, if they can just nitpick and play the parts they want?
Have it to where if they play through one phase of the battle, all of the options they could've picked come unlocked when they go back later. Make it a challenge.-
1
-
-
From what I can tell, the number of cannons in each unit is scaled with the size of the unit.
Example: A 1500 man artillery unit will have more cannons than a 750 man artillery unit.
As of now, there's no exact way to tell how many cannons the game reads as being in each unit, but the graphic representation is probably accurate.(I.e. if the game shows five cannons, theres five cannons) -
This won't happen until there is official modding support.
Hopefully, soon. -
Now that v1.0 is out, is there a chance of the addition of mod support for Ultimate General: Gettysburg, or will I be waiting for the next game in the series for that?
-
I hope they will support modding - the first mod I'd like to play is the complete removal of the fantasy cavalry.
I plan on modding the hell out of it, textures, maps, balancing, everything.
-
11/10/2014
Revision update available for PC, in a few hours also for Mac users:
- Fixed AI not moving in some Custom Multiplayer Maps and adjusted it better as per first feedback.
- Rank reset bug for Multiplayer fixed.
Any word on modding being a launch feature, or a post-launch addition?
-
Good post, sir!
I barely noticed it though - the demand threads on Star Citizen's forums are far more obtuse and annoying. Guess I'm so used to seeing (and ignoring) them, I don't notice anymore.
Star Citizen's forums are pretty bad about it, but Planetary Annihilation's is even worse.
Thanks for the kind message.
I want to clarify that we try to filter everything and not to take personally any "oppressive demand" as we respect everyone allocating time to login and writing for us his opinion. I know from my modding experience that criticism helps even if sometimes is kind of harsh. Writing constructively your requests and feedback, even expressing negative thoughts, can only mean that you are interested in the game and you want to help it to become better. But that does not mean we can satisfy every request. There are limitations of what we can offer for this game in the development time we have scheduled for it. Some of your ideas may come in a later patch after the full release or in our next game of the series. So keep the feedback coming!
Thanks for the response Darth.
-
Hello all,
Ive been lurking the forums the past few months, and I've noticed a growing trend.
The people are demanding additional changes and features, and the developers have failed to communicate their idea for in the game, in its entirety, to the masses.
First of all, I'd like to address the members of the community here;
You guys are whats helping this game get made. Its your feed back and early backing thats been helping the developers the most. But the way a select few of you are voicing your ideas, is not the way to do it.(See: Where the heck is the full 4 day campaign game?!?!)
Gentlemen. That is not the way you should react. While it does get the point across, it makes you seem like a whiner. Just plainly ask, "Hey, is there any word on a full, non-stop, 4-day campaign?"
Its not that hard. A dev is more likely to respond to a calm post than an angered, complainer.And lastly, to the devs;
You guys have worked hard so far, and thats commendable. The game has come a long way, and still has a ways to go. But communication is needed. There's a lot of things that people want, and I feel that you have yet to provide a full, in-depth idea of what you want this game to be. A full, four day ahistorical simulation, or a day-by-day, quick battle strung across the four days.
But I think the most important thing is for you to list the features that you aim to have complete for the official release, so that we know what to expect. And then to respond to what the community would like to see(e.g. why it doesn't fit in your vision, why you won't do it, etc.)
And then a confirmation of post-launch content additions. More battles over time, more content, more features.
Thanks for reading. This game can be great, but we need calm collaboration to make it that way.
-Tormidal...On a personal note; is there any word on the addition of mod support?
-
7
-
-
As someone who games in an unreasonably high resolution, I think the stars are fine.
-
Its a combination of morale, condition, cover, and shock modifiers.
Historically, in both the ACW and Napoleonic Wars, regiments didn't really stand against each other for more than a volley. In UGG, units are a bit more tough than that. but not by much.You may just want to make sure they don't take too much fire from the Union, make sure they have decent cover, and watch their condition/morale. If those two drop too low, the brigade will rout.
Also, I believe there is an indication of veterancy. I think it was stars on the brigade information?
-
I would love to see a mod community arise from this game. Before we go planning on what we want, I think its best we at least wait until Ultimate General Gettysburg is a complete game first, we do not know what other surprises Darth will add to it yet! (Holding back my excitement)...
Doesn't hurt to shout out what you'd like to see. ;D
But... I would love to see this game with Regimental control instead of Brigades only. Would have to re-write the script for unit description and size. Detatch Brigade Generals and have them be separate entities but connected to specific Brigades for it to work. But with the current control of click and drag having Regimental control would be amazing. It would leave us with chances to modify the looks of specific Regiments just as they would of appeared.
Like South Carolina units wearing Light Blue, Mississippi units would have red dash mixed with their Grey and of course Virginia in their Dark Grey.
We could also perhaps show at the center of each regiment with their own specific Flag....
How amazing would that be!
Wouldn't need that much re-writing actually.
1) Add more brigades
2) Rename all brigades to regiments
3) Decrease size to balanced levels
4) Add Corps Commanders(Rename them to Brigade generals, etc.)
5) Attach Regiments to those Brigade Commander.(For macro purposes)
But it would definitely simplify adding historically accurate brigade/regiment uniforms.
As for flags....can't say for sure how that would work out until we get the modding tools/open file system.
-
I'm not even going to pretend I know what any of that meant.... lol
lol
On another note, I tried turning Unit Transparency on (I had it off) and a turned Unit Shadows off. That seems to have done the trick
. All units are now visible for me.Maybe it reset the settings. Might be something the Devs should look into.
-
I was just kind of confused at first, I was like "Gamestop doesnt do reviews, wut." lol
-
Guys, make sure you upload your DXDiag.txt files, or other appropriate system/driver information. This will help the devs figure out if its a hardware/driver incompatibility with their new rendering systems.
On the other hand, make sure you have the latest drivers--NVIDIA released some new drivers two days ago for all their cards(from the 8-series to the 700-series.) -
Not going into much detail(ill go into more detail closer to the inclusion of modding), but I was curious about who/how many in the community would be interested in a huge mod for UGG, that would included a different(community-driven) balance, some different/randomized textures for each brigade(if possible), maybe the inclusion of other maps, editing the times that brigades arrive to help modify balance; those sorts of things.
TL;DR: Im looking to create a large mod that will make UGG more appealing, in terms of both gameplay and appearance; all driven by the community of UGG and what they'd like to see(and the developers dont have plans for/dont want to do/dont have the budget/etc.etc.etc.)
Who all would be interested, and what would you like to see?
Planned(not finalized yet) features of the mod:
Independent installer/launcher to enable/disable mod options. (See: Darthmod Launchers)
Indicators between howitzers/smoothbore/etcOption to split up brigades into regiments
Custom textures! Wooooo!
Add flags to each brigade/regiment, if possible in the engine.
Disable/Enable vedette ability to capture VPs
Disable/Enable VPs(if possible)
One long continuous battle option(if possible)
-
GameSpot =/= Gamestop.
Also, I think that "late summer" isnt a good release date, I dont recall Game-Labs/Darth giving this estimate.
-
I think when Darth opens up a modding interface, or just opens up the file system to us plebs, that this would be one of the first things I would want to do a mod for, is just custom scenarios.
-
How about a game speed slider?
-
but... I repeat, it's not a case most of wargames (tactical or strategical) use Vps, not for programming indolence. With all respect, I think most of you have not much experience in multiplayer where, unfortunately (not me) most of players want just to win and care nothing about realistic/historical behaviours. I didn't fall in any contradictions, the Total War example is very demonstrative: skirmish battles don't have "a sense", and armies should just crouch frontal each other, every battle is quite the same, and, most of all, why should I leave my initial position and just not get entreched? for what purpose? For gentleman agreement? For an honourable war conduct? Yes it would be nice but it' s not going to be that way except you are going to play just vs trusted friends.
Same for ai. It's not easy give it priorities goals without VPs, you will probably (as, once again, happens on Total War games) experience an ai who just follows and pursues your forces along the whole battlefield, like a dull cat and mouse-game ... it's really the kind of battle you are looking for? Anyway it would be nice if Nick or other guys involved would give their opinion... I may be wrong of course but decades or wargaming taught me something.
Ps
Sorry for my bad english
As someone who's played both Starcraft and Supreme Commander competitively for years, Im going to disagree with you(Although, those games do have a much different nature than UGG and TW). Its true, most players do want to win, and typically wont care about how armies would have acted back then. While you do have a point, that Total War skirmishes dont have much of an objective(except to destroy the enemy), this is due to a lack of objectives in the battle. Removing VPs will have a similar effect, although, judging from Darth's work on Total War's battle AI, I don't doubt that he would be able to pull it off.
-
No need for "ironman" mode or anything, this isn't a competitive ranked game or anything. I want to be able to go back into the different phases of the battle and replay them, and also be able to choose different things during the planning stage. As Confederates after encircling the Feds in phase 2 of the battle, I had the choice between pressing the attack or waiting for reinforcements. I chose to wait for reinforcements and won a defensive battle against the Union troops and got an Epic Victory. It'd be cool to go back and see how I would do if I had chosen to attack immediately instead of waiting, since replaying the whole game would lead to a different result obviously.
I think you misunderstand the ironman mode we are referencing. It isnt about ranks or competition, its about making the game harder. Thats the point of ironman. And thats why Game Labs should make it an option.
-
1
-
-
Ill agree with David, that it(VPs) should be something that can be disabled/enabled in the gameplay settings.
THESE FEATURES SHOULD BE ADDED
in General Discussions
Posted
Thats what im still waiting for.