Xenutheeviloverlord

I'm just confused as to how I could possibly know that Snow is carrying contraband from miles away. Maybe having a mechanic where you can board a trader and see if they're carrying contraband?

It's simple as that. Especially dealing with heavy damages that may require dry docking, you can't repair certain damages simply by using a repair kit. To deal with more realism in your game, which will require better decision making than, hit repair to repair to 100%, repair kits should be limited to keeping your ship alive long enough to reach a settlement and repair with all the shipbuilding tools they would have there.

agreed good sir

I don't want to offend the developers, their AI is far superior than most AAA titles (cough Rome 2 total war, cough) But we are not in an age where an AI can handle a complex game based on complex rules. Chess? sure... it's a complex game based on very simple rules. But this? Game-labs could build the best AI the world has ever seen and it still would probably still have trouble passing the no-click test (much less an actual game with a click-happy human being.) And they should have a full single-player campaign against an AI. But please consider finding a way to play against a human opponent in a multiplayer campaign. (essentially a sp campaign, but with a human opponent.)

I was thinking if it was possible to have a little more "automated control" over your army... the ability to alter your brigade's behavior when you are not watching over them. Some battles can have up to 40,000-50,000 men. Which can involve up to 20 brigades on each sides plus their artillery. That's quite a bit of micromanagement. Especially on the larger maps. The current system is great for "small" battles of about 10,000-20,000 men, but when it gets bigger, you're kind of running all over the place. Things that the computer may be able to do automatically than wait for us to give the word... Reoccupying a previous position they were driven from after they broke and ran. Chasing after breaking enemies, or otherwise maintaining contact. I can't make a comprehensive list because some will be seriously controversial. But being able to give our brigades more defined instructions may seriously cut down on the "babysitting". One thing that really bugs me is when I input movement arrows and an enemy enters their path without me knowing. They do fire at the enemy, but then continue to march forward, reloading slower and ultimately getting outgunned by the faster reloading enemy (who have stopped and are standing still.) I wish there was a way of telling them what to do when stuff like that happens. They should stop and focus on winning the fire fight (important for Union soldiers) as opposed to continuing forward in a sort of lazy march/charge... a ma-rge... Or when the enemy breaks when I'm focused somewhere else, I want my brigades to maintain contact or even charge the fleeing enemy. Just "simple" stuff like that. I'd go into more details but it's kinda approaching that TL;DR threshold.. to

How about another tool- Where you select a unit, right click on a plot of land on the map and a drop down box appears with selections such as: form up behind wall. form right of XXX brigade. form left of XXX brigade. find cover

I'd have to agree with OP, using map limitations/borders to gain a positional or mobility advantage is not particularly kosher in my eyes... If the map wasn't limited, I too would send a few brigades around their flank to pincer them, effectively putting fire on both sides of the attack column, but since he is using the border to protect his flank, (since I can't send units off the map) it seems unreasonable to say that this is not a cheap move. That being said, I don't know what a proper solution would be, despite how important keeping serious "gamey" elements out of this gem should be.

is there a predicted release date for 0.9?

I think the movement path tool (where you select one unit and draw the movement route they would take, forming an arrow along their path) is excellent and very versatile. Which is why I wonder why the same isn't possible when drawing battle lines. You just drag the mouse cursor over the battlefield while having multiple units selected and they simply form up on the line you've drawn... because it's so clumsy to try and form battle lines manually, without UI or programmed assistance, it becomes a bit frustrating. Perhaps a sort of tool... You lasso or select a group of units, and then draw the line like you would draw the path for single units currently. So draw an S shaped line with your mouse and the units will form an s shaped firing line, you draw a C or a shallow crescent and the line infantry will fall into a C or shallow crescent firing line. Draw an O with your mouse and watch as your line infantry draws the noose around your surrounded foes!

Perhaps a sort of formation tool... You lasso or select a group of units, and then draw the line like you would draw the path for single units currently. So draw an S shaped line with your mouse and the units will form an s shaped firing line, you draw a C or a shallow crescent and the line infantry will fall into a C or shallow crescent firing line. Draw an O with your mouse and watch as your line infantry draws the noose around your surrounded foes!

I keep having a problem where I can't form battle lines properly, making them overlap and sometimes forcing them to have to rearrange while under enemy fire. It also doesn't help that different battalions are different sizes, making them line up shoulder to shoulder difficult. Is there any suggestions as to tackle this problem? I would suggest that grouping together units would make the unit act as one unit, so that they (battalions) would form proper battle lines without overlapping or cluster together.

I've found that managing arty ammo use has been grating on me. It's very... remanicent of babysitting gameplay. This especially happens when I'm switching between explosive shells and canisters. Trying to bombard troops with shells while making sure their targets aren't about to charge, where I would then have to manually switch to canister. So I think that artillery should have a sort of check boxes format when regarding which munitions to hurl at the enemy. Solid Shells Canister So that if you want all three munitions to be used freely, you check all three. If you want just canister, checkmark the canister only. And if you want shells and canisters fired only, you would select those two and leave the solid shot unchecked. This way, you don't have to babysit the cannons perilously close to the front. This way, by allowing cannons to fire both canister and shells. They won't waste their energy shooting far targets with less effective solid, but be prepared to switch to canister if the enemy charge or get within range of canister. How about it?

Perhaps accidents be simulated on dangerous terrain? Like losing an artillery piece as it tried to cross rocky terrain or gets swamped in a stream?

You got most of the question right. My only question is whether the tablet and PC versions will differ due to their hardware differences or due to having to be a direct port, the PC version of UGG will also have to 'downgrade' so that the tablet can also run it.

I don't agree with that idea. Encirclements happen in combat quite a bit. I mean, why, from a real life point of view, is Herr ridge suddenly unconquerable when the confederates capture either victory point? Does that mean that if I capture Herr ridge, the confederates can't capture Oak and Seminary Ridge as well? Can videttes actually capture VPs? That's never happened to me, and I have had videttes on Herr Ridge during one game. They didn't capture it. Out-maneuvering and outflanking shouldn't be artificially suppressed. Keeping situational awareness, scouting and a reserve if possible available solves these tactical issues. But they should consider fixing the skirmisher vidette issue. Supposedly those units are not represented accurately from a historical standpoint.

I've never player SMG, but after watching the YouTube video, SMG and UGG do not really seem that similar. But that would be because I've never played SMG.

Plus it would look authentic and rather badass

Just a question to the developers about developing the game on tablets. I'm not asking or demanding that they not develop the game for tablets... but I'm just sort of curious as to what that would mean for the game as a whole. Like if it's pointless to ask for certain functions, or graphical enhancements (like adding additional smoke graphics)

I'm not saying you couldn't scout with your general... you just couldn't do it without risking the death of your general... Or like somehow end up behind enemy lines and continue to scout their rear while being completely impervious to death.

Ever since I've started played this game, I've been finding myself googling/wikapedia-ing a lot of stuff about the civil war. I am a WW2 kind of guy, but this game has sort of piqued my interest in ACW history. And I've read about how smoke greatly effected combat on the battlefield. And thinking from both a developer and historical context. I think it would be awesome if there were some extra smoke effects from repeatedly firing guns. Just a huge cloud of gunpowder smoke just drifting across the battlefield from all the musket and cannon fire. Because honestly, despite being a 2.5D game, it's asthetically more beautiful (and by more, I mean astronomical units more, very beautiful asthetics) than say... Command and Conquer, Diablo 3, despite using so few graphical resources. I think adding extra smoke effects would just nail home the asthetic and feel of the ACW. And it would be kind of cool if visibility/ fog of war was effected by the thick white smoke... That being said, some historians feel that actual musket accuracy reduced greatly as the battle went on, but I could see this mechanic being exploited in multiple way if it was implimented.

I actually like the auto-fallback, especially for the skirmishers and think that with a few tweaks (such as implimenting an auto-engage, where brigades and skirmishers will try to maintain firing contact after falling back.) Should be a real mechanic in the game to note, consider and use. Although it does feel frusturating at times, (mainly because once they fallback, they do not push back up and try to re-engage the enemy) its easy for me to remind myself that although this is a game, the game is trying to represent real soldiers and leaders who are confused and terrified.

Since generals cannot die, it seems that some players take advantage of this by using them as invincible scouts. That being said, it seems that mostly confederate players do this, since their troops are invariably better led and have better morale. So why were generals made unkillable and would you consider killable generals? I know that this shouldn't be a problem, but sending my skirmishers or line troops to chase generals away cost stamina and draws away valuable troops from the battle.

Since it seems the singleplayer campaign will not be multi capable here are a few things the AI needs to be able to do if you want a life-like AI Use cannons offensively, keep them in the line or lead them in the advance so that they can use explosive shells and canister to soften enemy (your) defenses. Use terrain (hills, valleys) effectively in order to hide troops, hide movement, avoid long range artillery fire. AI doesn't use videttes effectively, human players always use them in hit/run tactics, especially against cannons in the rear, but union AI just make them stand there and bite entire volleys instead of actively scouting and harassing. AI doesn't retreat or pullback its line troops ever, even though they are taking unnecessary casualties or will quickly break in their current situation.

I don't really know where this should go, using the "report bug" doesn't work when this bug rears its ugly head. Essentially, twice tonight, I was trying to play multi on two maps as confederates when they first meet at gettysburg. Essentially the battle continues to play in front of you like a movie, the camera movement and mouse movements still works... Except you can no longer select and order your units. escape button/options does not work, the report bug button does not work... essentially it turns into a movie, with no intervention possible on your part.

I don't like how you have to more or less intentionally lose in order to get some of the scenarios.