TDuke

This was expected but I really hope 2 vs 2 feature will be included in the first release of next UG game Nick

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/6249-and-the-winner-is-union/ Not so unbalanced it seems...

Napoleonics (Austerlitz, Borodino or Leipzig for my personal taste) or a Seven Years' War scenario.

Finally the multiplayer! And and full order of battle and how many fixes! Simply awesome

Couldn't agree more .

First of all some clarifications: 1) I respect other points of view 2) I wouldn't mind an option to disable Vps if many players long for it 3) I agree with David Fair statements "theoretically" 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

Agree

VPs simulate the importance of a particular location, which is absolutely realistic. Morevoer , remember it's a game, vps give battle dynamics, "a sense" to follow, remove them and, expecially in multiplayer, most of players will just camper forcing the opposite player to attack just to do something, trust me m8 Also for AI vps are important for similar reasons. As I already wrote in an other thread, most of serious wargames have VPs not for a "caprice" but becouse they are an irrevocable abstraction/compromise .

Turning VPs off would have no sense imho. All battles would turn into a dull and boring "meeting-engagement" à la Total War where you have to route and destroy the entire enemy force every time...

Ehm So War in the East is a mass-market wargame? Same for TOAW or any Talansoft or HPS game or Steel Panthers series, or Austerlitz:Napoleon 's greatest victory, Histwar:Le Grognards or the upcoming Brother Against Brother from Matrix set in ACW and I could go on .... well Total War games are mass-market rts and they don't have Vps indeed

I agree about battle delayed issue but removing vp would be simply absurd. Vps and casualties give you the output in every "serious" wargame

thanks for reply Maybe in the feature we will see unit moving reversing...

May someone reply me please about "fall back" issue?

Speedslider would have no sense in multiplayer....

Totally agree. Anyway actual gamespeed could be fine if you would be able to give ai the command of your divisions (and considering how good is the ai it's definitely a feature I'm longing for)

It's just me or the "fall back" command doesn't work as I suppose it shoud... the unit simply turn back and retreat, I've never seen any man of the first line keep shooting to cover the retreat (as happens with the same command on SoW games)

Please no green or any other coloured bars on the battlefield here... 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. 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. Agree.

....select the regiment could "auto-highlight" the specific corp/division commander (similar as in Grary Grigsby 's "War in the East") + option 3

Ah ok

Yes being able to capture guns would be terrific and would add a lot of deep to gameplay imho. As to cavarly behaviour well I personally like its "napoleonic attitude" (after all I'm a napoleonic warfare maniac) but of course it's quite unhistorical ... Anyway I think (but may be wrong) Nick chose Gettysburg and the ACW era for "a simplification purpouse" (just two factions, similar battlegrounds etc) to give us a "simple" but very deep and "serious" wargame without being too much chained to the specific warfare scenario. Longing for multiplayer...

I'm very glad about movement tweaks of the new version Are you going to add malus when crossing rivers?

Totally agree.