Jethro

This is just for fun... Wanna play football with this guy? Seriously.... it's so wrong.

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 lead thousands of soldiers in the famous Battle of Gettysburg as commander of either the Union or Confederate army." Now, I ask you, person to person. What is a tactical battle simulator? Kinda of a self-defining term, isn't it? Furthermore, I don't see the word "arcade" or "hybrid" anywhere in that sales copy. If arcade hybrid game was what I was sold, why isn't that what I was told? In Texas, that's called a lie. I'm not sure what it's called anywhere else. But, that's ok. I'm not from anywhere else. I live in the Seattle area now, though. I'm guessing these "progressive" types here (you know, the ones with soap allergies who live on meth and granola) can tell me why the sales pitch isn't deceptive (if I can stand the smell of patchouli long enough to listen to their bullshit, that is). But, I don't really see that happening. Like I said, in Texas, the sales pitch on the store page is fiction, plain and simple. I mean, how many fabrications in a sales pitch does it take to make it deceptive in nature? The answer, for honest people, is that even one falsehood is unforgivable. We don't like being jerked around. That's why we don't do it to others. As for the rest, I can only assume a "tactical element" is an element of tactics, since that's what it says and since the OOB is bragged about elsewhere in the text. Obviously, many basic tactical elements are absent from this game and others are wildly inaccurate and/or poorly implemented. Surrender, entrenchments and dismounted cavalry are first grade stuff for even a basic "tactical battle simulator". I don't think that's a point that needs a great deal of arguing. It's more of a a fact which can't be refuted in any real or meaningful way. I guess I'm just a crusty old man. But, after a lifetime of being sold one thing and getting something else (or nothing, at all), a person gets jaded and, well, pissed off, for lack of a better phrase. Obviously, it's not the $10 I care about. I can't even get a decent sandwich for $10. But, the wasted time, on the other hand, matters to me... and the deception. That's a problem for me. Anyway, I've said my piece here. I can't get back the time I've wasted on this arcade game hybrid thing - or whatever it is. But, I can cut my losses, now, by not wasting any more on it. Believe me when I tell you - I have better things to do. If you value your time, David, I'd advise you to do the same. P.S. I think I forgot to thank you for confirming my worst suspicions. If you've spent months telling the developers the perfectly obvious, all to no avail, why would anything change, ever, and how long can you wait for that? I might have wasted months of my own doing the same thing you have. I sincerely appreciate that. If time was money (it's actually far more valuable) what you're doing now is throwing good money after bad. It's all going down the same hole, never to return. I'm cutting my losses, immediately, though. Good luck with this fiasco.

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 strategy game is incorporated into gameplay. (you mean basic stuff like surrenders, dismounting cavalry, limbering artillery and building entrenchments?) Most importantly, morale is affected by many factors including flank or rear attacks, casualties, volley shocks, artillery fire and fatigue." "Ultimate General: Gettysburg includes the full order of battle for the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Unit sizes will range from the small artillery batteries to vast infantry brigades with cavalry and skirmishers in between. All brigades have troop numbers and differing competencies based on historical facts. Additionally, all artillery battery numbers and types are correctly simulated. (not so much) Lastly, major generals and officers actively participate in the battlefield to organize and support the armies and will also appear in after action battle reports to help you monitor battle progress." I was sold an accurate historical simulation of Gettysburg. I have no idea what I actually bought, though. Does anyone?

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-defined innate expertise (which could certainly be characterized as "faith-based") that flies in the face of well-established fact, common sense and reason. Facts and analysis are my religion. I place my faith there. And the facts indicate two likely possibilities: Either the early development of this game was critically flawed and the developers are now acutely aware of that fact. But, it's way too late to change things. So, they're trying to make the history match their programming, as best they can, in numerous ways. (Occam would choose this as the most likely explanation. The razor always knows...) Or it's as simple to explain as creationism and intelligent design - intentional disregard of self-evident truths which run counter to strongly held personal beliefs. (Doesn't sound like a programmer's mentality. But, who knows? It takes a lot of idiots in a lot of villages to make a whole world.) There is so much promise here. So much is so right. The way it appears, though, intransigence will prevent certain glaring problems from ever being solved. In fact, I'd bet good money on it. After all, why fix a problem that doesn't exist, right? The problem is all those erroneous records, military experts and history professors. The experts are all wrong. The devs know better. And that's not gonna change. How do you fix that?

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 to logic, the flow of battle and game play are outstanding and very immersive. But, when it fails, it does so glaringly. But, that's probably only because there is so much goodness here to illuminate the flaws.

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 you program this without some sort of danger awareness/avoidance routine... I'm a bit baffled by it.

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 business end of those enemy guns while it still can"? A real human in such a circumstance will do two things: 1. Get away from the danger. 2. Get to safety. They aren't the same thing. Believe me, number one is the first priority. As an aside, all computer programs are formulaic, by their very nature, aren't they? Computer languages could be described as formulas for arranging all those zeroes and ones in a logical and pleasing manner. Programs could be described similarly. Human behavior is also formulaic, as you insinuate, or we wouldn't have the sciences of psychology and sociology to bore us in school. But, you don't need a degree in either science for this. Common sense tells us that no one in a panic would run directly into the face of the perceived danger which has them panicking in the first place. At least, they wouldn't as long as there was a better option. Maybe something that didn't involve certain death. It doesn't seem like a hard case to make, really. People do, quite predictably, run away from danger, not toward it. Someone needs to tell the zeroes and ones that.

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 who really should simply surrender - usually before the situation is entirely hopeless and they're actually surrounded. I think knowing you're about to be cut off, surrounded and annihilated would cause morale to collapse, completely and hopelessly. The obvious result is surrender.

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 likely result would be that enemy artillery would be spiked or captured and their personnel would be routed, especially if there are twice as many men on horses (with repeaters) than men on foot (with single-shot rifles). And, since Napoleons weigh 1200 lbs, I doubt anyone would be capable (or desirous) of moving them 50 meters while under close assault by cavalry. That's kinda crazy.

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.

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.)

I had the same problem. Check the VPs. Units can get lost under the VP value. That's where mine was hiding, anway.

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.

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...

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 would supply plenty of motivation, even resourcefulness. In any case, the old Avalon Hill game I played when I was a kid (back in the dark ages we used maps, counters and dice) I seem to recall that immobile units who weren't under fire could entrench. It seems logical, doesn't it? Also, I think it would add a lot to game play. Patience should be rewarded with better defense.

I haven't played that much. But, it's only happened to me when a VP was truly being contested or a unit was in a charge.

Let me start by saying this is an AWESOME game. I've played a few battles and really enjoyed each and every one - even when I got my ass handed to me. Enjoying a game that kicks your ass is a rare delight, by any measure. Also, I hope I'm putting this in the right spot on the forums. ---------------------------------------------- 1. Hopefuilly, this is planned as a feature for the future. But, I'm amazed there is no way to fortify troops and have them dig in on the high ground. Soldiers use shovels FAR more than rifles - in any war. Think about it. If there were thousands of pissed of rebs/yanks breathing down your neck, what would be the first thing you'd do when your unit stoppped and took up a new position? If you didn't say "find some way to keep all thise guys from killing me and all my buddies", then Darwin would have you pretty quick. Generally, whenver a unit takes up a new position, the first thing that happens is scouts are sent out to survey the surrounding territory and possibly probe for enemy weaknesses, thay also set up pickets (guards) and everyone who isn't doing those things has a shovel in their hand or are gathering logs and stuff for breastworks. It's extremely important and it's not represented at all in the game. Ideally, the amount of fortification would increase over time and be part of the real estate, not an attribute of the unit. If you dig holes and leave, the enemy can occupy them and thank you most kindly for all your hard work. The ground doesn't smooth back over when you matrch away. So, any prepared positions would be usable by any infantry unit on both sides. 2. I'd like to be able to shift units in formation without them changing faicing or formation. As it is, I can't dress my lines because my guys will wheel around and give the enemy a free flank shot on them if I even move them a few meters to one side or the other. 3. I'd like to decide between column or line formations and there should be two line widths - single and double lines, basically. 4. I should be able to dismount/remount cavalry and decide amongst various formations, lilke wedge, column or line. 5. What? No sharpshooters? Both sides had them and both sides feared them. They should be represented in the game. 6. Those are the big weaknesses I see, from a purely game-centric perspective. Historically, though, we can argue all day about who had better equipment, training and supplies. So, maybe the game could have diffrerent historical "what if" modes to reflect the different possibilities, eventually. Like what if Lee was up to par for the battle? What if someone other than Meade was commanding the Union? What if the European countries had recognized the Confederacy? For myself, I'd want the most historically accurate version. But, this could make people who have their own theories of history happy and, at the end of the day, sell more games. It just occured to me... maybe a simple slider with default levels which allow troop attributes to be adjusted. For example, if the Union morale, overall, is a 3 out of 10, the player can increase the morale using the slider and bump up the Union's overall morale - or command strength or anything else. ---------------------------------------------- Well, that's all for now. Thanks for such a great game and keep up the good work!