Harnis

what does "revamp of gameplay" mean?

should that decision not be up to the player? If I want to overextend my army and have a unit pushed too far ahead with too many casualties, surely that should be my choice to make, or if the brigade routs because their morale drops. The game does try to keep brigades in their approximate positions, but sometimes it does do annoying things like that.

I'd rather have modding support than another game already.

The AI has come a long way. My last test of that Confeds advance to attack cemetery against cunning union AI resulted in a solid victory and I took all the objectives, but.... It only resulted in around 2000 casualties for my confeds and around 4k for the union. Why? Because instead of sitting there on cemetery hill while they get encircled and demolished, once some union brigades started to rout and I was pushing hard, the entire union army fell back to where the reinforcements were coming in. So while I won a massive victory, if that battle had been in a campaign, the union AI had preserved almost it's entire army in the face of a huge defeat. Instead of taking the desperate approach of holding the line at all costs and shortening its lines, sending reserves in, etc, it instead chose to fall back and fight another day.

Cavalry charging a line of infantry in any historical period was only devastating if the infantry broke from the charge. Even in the medieval times of heavily armored knights, throwing your 4 legged animal at a wall of armor and spiky things is not going to end well unless those spiky things start running away first. This is only exaggerated once firearms become more prominent. Simply put, if infantry hold their ground and hold firm in the face of a cavalry charge, the cavalry have two choices, either break off and try again, or ride into a wall, which is suicidal for both sides. The issue is if the infantry can hold firm in the face of a wall of horses and yelling men charging at them. That's not an easy task. Of course, none of this matters for the ACW, since cavalry weren't really used that way anyways.

Yeah I've noticed this too, especially when you get to those 3rd day scenarios where you have Custer's units and Stuart's units on the field. It's brutal.

Yeah easy way to fix it would be to remove Buford as a general, and remove the horse units so you only have 2-3 dismounted cavalry as skirmishers

Just a note for Olee O'Hara: historically artillery would limber and run away if they wanted yo, Mich faster than infantry could keep up with. To be historically accurate artillery should actually move faster

with how overpowered Videttes are, the Confederate General's response was perfectly reasonable The issue in that case is not the AI, it's the Videttes.

it would be difficult to replicate the indecision of certain generals. Heth was under orders to avoid a large battle, so to simulate that in the game, you'd have to play the first battle against a "Cunning" Confederate AI or something. If you play as the Confederates and decide to push hard for the Cemetery on the first day, well, it's going to go differently than the real battle did. Obviously. One way around this would be to have AI personalities for individual Corp Generals. So maybe playing as Union, the overall Confederate AI personality would be "Determined", but then, for example, Longstreet on the second day would be Cunning or Defensive, simulating how he delayed for hours in making his attack.

Yeah they could either just make the artillery dudes run at the same speed as skirmishers, or swap out the sprites for a little horse and limber. It doesn't really seem like a huge limitation.... And as for casualties in artillery, fixing their mobility to historical levels would fix this. There would be no need to deal with captured guns and stuff. In the whole battle of Gettysburg I don't believe even a single gun was captured and turned against the enemy. So it's not a big deal. Capturing guns is simulated by if you catch arty in melee. Most of the time the guns would be disabled before being captured.

I understand there are limitations in a game, but what limitations are currently preventing a more realistic approach to artillery? And how would making artillery perform and behave realistically be somehow contrary to the gameplay goal?

Basically, it tries to orient them based on their current orientation. The issue is that sometimes their current orientation isn't too clear from the computers perspective

yeah.....first hand data is always going to be subjective. You can have one general say artillery was almost useless, and another general say it was the key to a battle. The only hard evidence to look at is the actual results and statistics. Artillery achieved X amount of kills per Y amount of shots fired. etc.

wow, a new patch already. Any ideas on what you guys have planned for the final release patch?

yes exactly. When a routing unit is caught in melee, they take casualties extremely rapidly, and yes, it's meant to simulate surrendering as well as being killed, captured, injured, whatever. I think that's a pretty reasonable assumption. I mean, historically, there were around 46 thousand casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg. But only around 8 thousand of those were actually deaths, with 27 thousand wounded and 11 thousand captured/missing. In a game at this level, there's not much point in simulating the difference between those 3 possibilities.

another way to reposition artillery without them facing the wrong direction is to hold down CTRL and then hold down right click. You can then drag to rotate the position, and they will walk to that position and face the direction you set.

I will need to play through it and see exactly what happens. I've never really noticed that disappearance, I've been playing mostly as the Confederates to test Union defensive capabilities. David gives good tactical advice. As for where to move units that have regrouped, it depends. Monitor their morale. If you notice, falling back recovers morale, especially if you order them to fall back yourself before they run away. Watch the regrouped unit and decide when you think they have enough morale to push forward again. As a general rule, idk, maybe 40-50%? But it really depends what you want them to do. If you just want them to move up to a supporting position in the battle lines, then even at 20-30% they can do it, as long as they won't face heavy combat. Want them to assault a heavily defended position in cover? Better wait until they are back to 70-80% morale. and like David said, the trick is to keep regrouping units out of fire. If they fall back, and are sitting there under fire from artillery, they won't recover much morale.

hey man, easy, we're all on the same side here in agreeing that artillery does not behave properly right now, both for gameplay reasons AND for historical reasons. I like your idea of deploying artillery by brigade rather than by battery. It does seem wrong when you're fighting a battle and you have 6 infantry brigades as units, but then you have 12 artillery units comprised of 3-5 guns. I think we should try and narrow down the changes to be made to arty to a concise list. I'll give it a shot: 1) deploy by brigade rather than battery 2) limber/unlimber ability. Results in much faster movement when limbered. 3) higher vulnerability to infantry fire. Much higher. 4) further balancing of artillery damage to get closer to historical kill rates for artillery. Possibly balance this by increased damage to condition, fatigue, morale, etc. Anything you think needs to be added to that list? Removed? Changed?

artillery now take tons of casualties from melee, but I think they still take too few casualties from being shot at. I mean, a brigade of 2000 soldiers can fire a volley at a section of 50 artillery men, and only kill 1-2, but fire at another brigade and kill 10-15. Now, maybe we can assume that artillery units are in cover better, more spread out and don't present the same large mass of men that a brigade does, or whatever. I'm not sure. But it does feel a little strange sometimes. I know the game is meant to be simple, with a focus on tactics rather than micro-managing unit formations and special abilities and whatever. But I think artillery does need some kind of limber/unlimber mechanic. Also, I think an entrenchment factor needs to be added in. Something like the longer a unit stays in a position without moving (rotation would be ok?), the cover rating for that section of the map increases to simulate them starting to dig in and make trenches, breastworks, barricades, etc. This would also work for arty. So if a battery is sitting on a hill for hours, they would be able to withstand multiple volleys from enemy infantry, whereas if they were caught in the open or shortly after relocating, they would be butchered. It could be as simple as allowing artillery to rotate freely, but they need to limber in order to move. Limbering takes a little bit of time, but then movement speed is increased compared to now, so it would even be faster than infantry. If arty is caught while limbered, they would take massive casualties, kind of like how a unit caught in column formation takes more casualties. They'd need to unlimber before firing, which again takes a short period of time. I think just the simple limber/unlimber mechanic would totally eliminate panzer tactics with artillery. And heck, if they don't want to introduce that level of micro-management (understandable), make it automatic, like infantry using column formation. Just make it that when you give them a move order, they automatically limber, and then unlimber at the destination. They could even make it so that extremely short movement orders would be accomplished by rolling the guns around very slowly. Add to that the cover/entrenchment system and it would make arty behave more properly.

of course the community is trying to help make this game a success. But I would caution over-enthusiasm about making this game appeal to "the masses". It's a common thing for game developers to do, and they end up sacrificing the original intent of the game just to appeal to the same masses that like Call of Duty or Candy Crush. To be honest, I don't see a problem with this game having a limited appeal. What the devs are aiming for with this game is almost by definition going to be a game with limited appeal. I don't think UGG should be made to appeal to the broadest possible audience, and I don't think the devs do either. either way, what do you even think should be changed? Units staying in the exact same positions between phases? No time gaps between phases? having more phases to fill the gaps?

condescension. Otherwise known as talking down to someone, patronizing superiority. Shall I break it down for you? When you tell someone "it's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases" in that context of "well good for you if you like X inferior gameplay", it is condescending. Saying "some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg" - implying that people who disagree with you somehow don't? That's condescending. You can deny that you were being condescending, and that's expected, but whatever. You can see for yourself how much I have played it. I've played for 54 hours. How about you? Not that measuring e-peen like that makes much of a difference. And besides, if playing 54 hours is not considered "very much" and is not enough to see this horrendous teleporting you're talking about, then clearly it's not that bad of an issue. no, nobody teleported. What's your point? Who said anything about teleporting? If historically, the Union forces withdrew to Cemetery Ridge in the lull in the fighting after successfully holding Seminary Ridge, why is it so unrealistic if this happens in the game? Units do not "teleport" in UGG either. Why do you think they teleport? So you don't have an issue with there being a 4th day to the battle? Because it seemed like you did. 1&2) You complain about continuity between phases. So, if you don't want the game to be one single continuous battle from day 1 to day 3, then you are ok with the different phases existing. So what exactly is not continuous? Unit positions? When phases are separated by anywhere from hours to an entire night, why would you expect units to stay in all the exact same places as the previous phase? If you move Pettigrew's Brigade to the top of Seminary Ridge in a battle on the afternoon of day 1, why on earth would you expect that Pettigrew's Brigade would be in that exact same spot on the morning of the second day? 3) it does not get reset to a canned script. Depending on what you did in the previous battle, your units are in slightly different starting positions. I am still testing this to see how much it does this, but it's pretty clear that whatever is going on, it's not just resetting to a canned script for the next phase of the battle. 4) since patch 0.9 when they made it easier to unlock the battles, I've unlocked every single battle just by playing, not by artificially trying to unlock them by playing a certain way. If you haven't unlocked all the phases yet, you just haven't played UGG very much

1) units frequently fell back and gave up positions they fought for earlier in the day in order to resupply and regroup. Like Blunt said, it even happened historically. The Union defended Seminary Ridge, but then withdrew to Cemetery and Culp's. 2) this game is not a "simulation of the battle of Gettysburg" in the way you are expecting it to be. I suggest you read the main description of the game on the website. http://www.ultimategeneral.com/ Some quotes: "On the morning of July 1st 1863, the two armies meet near Gettysburg. Reinforcements arrive from historically accurate directions as the battle progresses, however, random events, delays and tactical differences are always a possibility that can change the results of each engagement compared to history." "Can you re-enact Pickett’s Charge? What if Lee attacked the center of the Union Army early in the morning of July 2nd of 1863 instead of attempting to flank the extreme left in the afternoon? What would happen if Meade counter-attacked on July 4th 1863? These questions and more can be answered within the game engine of Ultimate General: Gettysburg." The game gives us the options to change history. That's pretty standard for any historical RTS game. It wouldn't be any fun if, say, Rome 2 Total War ALWAYS followed exact historical events. It would be no fun playing as the Gauls knowing that you were guaranteed to lose by a certain date. So yeah, there was no fighting on the 4th day historically. But there could have been. And the game allows for that possibility, as it should. That does not make it any less of a "simulation". "simulation" does not mean "exact replication". When they run a weather simulation of a tropical storm system, it's not an exact replication of exactly what will happen perfectly. It's a simulation showing realistic possibilities in a realistic testing environment. 3) The historical battle was not one long continuous engagement. There were plenty of breaks and lulls in the fighting. Having the battle as one long continuous battle in the game would be boring. You'd play for an hour on day one, passing a few hours of in-game time, and then sit there doing nothing for another 3 hours until night passes. It is not unrealistic to break up the "Battle of Gettysburg" into "piecemeal battles", because that's pretty much how it was historically. first off, easy on the condescension. Second, you really do need to read again what UGG is advertised as. It is not a "simulator to REPLAY Gettysburg". It is a realistic environment in which to play out the battle however it happens. It's not guaranteed to recreate and replay the historical battle. That wouldn't even be any fun. I have not yet encountered this situation you mention where you take Culp's Hill, and then the next battle you are deployed north of Gettysburg again. And as for your lovely ammunition calculations, ammo isn't the only issue. You are conveniently ignoring that Blunt also mentioned water, rest, and tending the injured. There are plenty of reasons why units fell back after taking or holding certain positions. And as for examples of positions that were taken, but later given up for non-combat reasons (ie not given up because they were being shot at, but just because they had to withdraw for other reasons): pretty much all the Confederate advances on the 2nd day. They took positions in the south at the round tops and devils den. Wright's brigade took a position on the top of Cemetery Ridge. But at the end of the day's fighting, those positions were given up due to lack of support, lack of supply, etc etc, whatever the reasons were. On the one hand you complain that the game doesn't follow the way the historical battle played out closely enough, but then you complain that units fall back in between the days of fighting the way they did historically.

here's my recent playthrough of Confederates Approach to Attack Cemetery Hill, playing as Confederates against Cunning Union AI http://imgur.com/a/JT5As#0 The Union again focused its defenses mostly on Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill. Very light defenses on Cemetery Ridge in the south. The Union AI didn't play badly, it just did not respond much to the dual flanking maneuvers by Ewell's 1st Division in the east and Pender's Division in the south-west. It had a solid defensive setup, and held Culp's Hill extremely well, and it only lost Cemetery Hill because it conceded the ridge too easily, and I was able to flank Union brigades there from the south and encircle them. The Union consistently defends Culp's Hill extremely well, making use of falling back, counter charges, flanking, etc. They even had artillery support on Power's Hill in the south that was hitting Smith's Brigade when I attempted to send him around to flank Culp's Hill from the south. This patch, the AI defends Cemetery Hill much better. It focuses forces on the Hill rather than in the town. The only issue is that the AI does not respond well to flanking attacks to the south on Cemetery Ridge. I mean, based on the initial deployments of the armies, the Union position is fine, but when you start to move brigades south to push up the ridge from the west, the AI seems to ignore it and just carry on defending the two hills north. With Culp's Hill so solidly defended, the AI could have afforded to move some reinforcements to the south. As soon as the XII Corp arrives, the Confederates are basically stuck at whatever position they've reached at that point, and can't advance any further. So all it takes is a few more brigades on Cemetery Ridge to delay the flanking maneuver, and then as soon as XII Corp arrives, the flank will be secured, and that means the Cemetery Hill objective will not be threatened from behind anymore. So I guess the conclusion, and the over-arching weakness in the AI is its ability to respond to broad flanking maneuvers.

why would units stay in exactly the same positions from the morning battle? If, say, you've chosen to attack a certain flank, why wouldn't the units reposition during the lull in fighting before you start the next battle? And the units do remain in similar positions most of the time. They don't stay in exactly the same spots, but it's usually in the same general area. And the next battles DO leave off where the previous battle ended.....troop casualties, morale, and condition carry over to the next battle, and the next battle's options depend on what was accomplished in the previous battle.