Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Jethro

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Jethro

  • Rank
    Landsmen
  • Birthday 03/13/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Washington State
  1. This is just for fun... Wanna play football with this guy? Seriously.... it's so wrong.
  2. The glass is damned near empty, amigo. And I'm not thirsty for what little it contains. I haven't studied Gettysburg or the war all that much, actually. I do know a great deal about shifty salesmen, though, and misrepresenting a product. The question about what I bought was rhetorical, The facts speak for themselves.. I did notice, however, that you completely ignored the most salient point made in my post. The first sentence in the first paragraph of the UGG store page goes like this: "Ultimate General: Gettysburg is a Tactical Battle Simulator that allows you to l
  3. From the Steam store page: "Ultimate General: Gettysburg is a Tactical Battle Simulator (sort of) that allows you to lead thousands of soldiers in the famous Battle of Gettysburg as commander of either the Union or Confederate army. The game will feature the most accurately created map, complex morale, innovative control mechanics and smart AI." "In Ultimate General: Gettysburg, you will realize that army units are not “machines” that blindly follow orders, but will need to conserve strength and courage for decisive battle actions. Every basic tactical element that is expected for a st
  4. At the risk of being banned and/or flamed, I feel compelled to tell things the way I see them. After all, I'm a paying customer. If I never play this game, again, my $10 bought me the right to tell this forum why, at least. David, what you wrote here confirms my suspicions about how this game is being developed. I guess it's easier, and more cost effective, to rewrite history than it is to rewrite code. It's one thing to lack understanding and make mistakes. Mistakes can, usually, be corrected. However, it's something else, entirely, to imagine to have some sort of ill-define
  5. Discussing this, I can't help but think of another game I play a lot, the Command Ops series by Panther/Matrix. It's operational scale and the WWII time period. But, it has the best AI I've ever seen - bar none. In it, routs, retreats, and surrenders all seem perfectly natural and expected (or, at least, within the realm of possibility) and flow quite smoothly in the overall chain of events. In a perfect world, I would take UGG's gorgeous topography and outstanding movement system and CO's AI and seamless, days-long battles and create a hybrid. With UGG, when it behaves according
  6. I couldn't agree more. It seems the program is all carrot and no stick. It should, in fact, be a tad heavy on the stick and light on carrots. Like real life, ya know? By that, I mean that during routs and retreats, the AI ignores obvious danger to seek safety. It sees only the carrot and not the stick. And, somehow, the program logic allows units to rout through a cohesive wall of men standing shoulder to shoulder shooting at them. These things seem like programming oversights, almost, since they're so intrinsic to the logic of the battlefield. I'm kinda wondering how
  7. My point was there seems to be an issue of routing units going through opposing units. In essence, they are routing directly into the very muzzles of enemy guns which made them rout in the first place. It defies reason. There should definitely be a mechanism - or formula - which prevents such a result. I believe everyone agrees on that. To be honest, I can't imagine another way to program a rout or retreat. Isn't the whole idea to get away from the danger? How do you tell a computer program to emulate human behavior in this example, except to say "tell that unit to get away from the
  8. I have no idea how the game is coded. But, it seems retreats are now governed by units running toward things. While it's certainly true that routing units would move toward cover or whatever else might save their hides, the main thing they're doing is running away from things. Namely, all those guys trying to kill them. If retreating units simply moved opposite the direction of incoming fire, and towards perceived safety, this would likely solve the problem, yes? However, this might not be as easy to code as it is to say. The only problem it won't solve is surrounded units
  9. Excellent point. I don't know if it's been mentioned elsewhere, But, what about spiking guns? When my cav descends upon unprotected enemy cannon, it should be pretty one-sided and the guns should be captured, if practical, or spiked (destroyed), if not. This is one of the deadliest cavalry capabilities during the time, I believe, and it was an artilleryman's worst nightmare. Oddly, the enemy can somehow move their (presumably) unlimbered guns around while being stomped by a cav unit twice their size. Seems like such an encounter would end in one of only a few ways. The most like
  10. Cavalry are your best scouts. You want them for that. Also, I believe thery were used quite a bit for flanking attacks during battle. It's not suicide if you hit an engaged unit from the rear. That's full on homicide, amigo.
  11. I like what Paradox does. If you want your rewards or badges or whatever, you have to play on hardcore mode, otherwise you can do as you please. If you really want hard core, though, should you be able to start battles over whenever things go badly? (Of course, a PC user can always F4 out of just about anything. Hard to stop that, methinks.)
  12. I had the same problem. Check the VPs. Units can get lost under the VP value. That's where mine was hiding, anway.
  13. Hah! Just got to the second stage in earnest and what do I see? Ewell's sharpshooers! Nice... I'm not real fond of the way the game moves stuff around between stages. It wants my arty to die on the front line. I have other plans for it, though.
  14. I agree. It's too easy to move artillery. It should need to be limbered/unlimbered to move or fire. Then, maybe it will stay where it's put. If limbering/unlimbering isn't in the cards, then a "Just Stay There, Dammit!" button would be nice for arty. They like to wander...
  15. Not sure how my post about the overtime thing wound up here... shouldn't post before coffee... In regards to entrenchments, it doesn't take that long to improvise some sort of defensive position. I knew about Culp's Hill, which made me bring it up. The way the story is told, those defenses probably saved the day for the Union. I wonder if entrenchments were used regularly, but only really mattered in a couple of places or it was truly that rare? I guess the battle was so fluid, and the men so worn out, it maybe wasn't practical. But, again it seems like not wanting to get hit wo
×
×
  • Create New...