Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

TDuke

Ensign
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    22

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by TDuke

    >>>Ultimate General: Gettysburg Feedback <<< [UPDATE] Patch 0.85 31/7/2014

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    "I think the aim of the battle should be to inflict as much damage on your opponent without suffering to many casualties."

    Not necessarily. Sometimes the aim was to drive your opponent away from the battlefield so that you can claim a victory, without suffering to many casualties. All battles are fought for political purposes: to make good headline, win popular support. By 1863, there was a great outrage against the war in the north. Lee knew he needed a couple more victories near the Union's heart, and Lincoln would have to sue for peace. Here's an Army War College lecture on that very subject:

     

    Couldn't agree more . :)

    What would you like added to UGG

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    I love your contradictions, first, you say that removing VPs will make the game a meet-and-engage sort of game, like Total War. Now, you say that removing them will turn the game into a camp fest. Make up your mind, mate.

    If anything, keeping VPs will help more likely turn the game into a camp fest, because the person who gets to the highest-point VPs first is most likely going to set on the position to hold onto it.

    If you remove VPs, theres nothing holding you to a particular spot, reducing the chance of camping.

     

     

    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 ;)

    What would you like added to UGG

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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 .

    • Like 1

    What would you like added to UGG

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    I really like that idea. That is the premise of what I meant to say. You just worded it better. If I change it now all the votes will be removed from that one so I cannot. Wish I could.

     

    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... <_<

    Battle Delayed

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    TDuke,

    I think you mean legacy mass-market wargame.

    No serious battlefield simulator has ever embraced VPs.

     

     

    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 ;)

    • Like 1

    'Cosmetic' Suggestions

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    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. :)

    Artillery

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Yeah, the artillery needs some tweaks. I also think it would be cool if we could capture guns.

     

    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...

    Terrain - Does it even matter?

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    IMHO terrain needs to matter much more in terms of its effect on both movement rates and cohesion. Just something to add some flavor. Right now we have the best looking map I've ever seen and yet the game itself takes very little note of all the intricate features it displays.

     

    Terrain does matter for cover, but it seems like my units can go through towns, woods and across streams as if they weren't there.  This kills immersion and waters down the gameplay considerably. 

     

     

    Totally agree.

×
×
  • Create New...