Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

UGGloyalist

Ultimate General Focus Tester
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by UGGloyalist

  1. UGG Team, Any response to my above question? Is it likely that 2v2, 3v3, etc... multiplayer will be added to the game? Or is this unlikely at this point? Also, any idea when we might be teased with the next game in the series? V/R, UGGLoyalist
  2. UGG Team, First off, let me say, excellent, truly excellent work on the newest patch. It required an extreme amount of patience and meditation to not keep bothering you guys about it. Between initial release and the latest patch, this game has evolved into something truly amazing. I have seen the AI do things now that I never thought it capable. The artillery improvements.... Just great. This is still in my humble RTS experienced opinion... the greatest RTS I have played. Brilliant. I cannot wait to see what you are choosing for the next game. I have great expectations. Second, is it likely that you will add 2v2, 3v3, etc... options to multiplayer? I still think that this will create a great amount of dimension to the multiplayer experience, and I know I can get a couple people to get on board this game if this option was there. Very Respectfully, UGGLoyalist
  3. I have a question about this. The way people are talking about it is confusing me. When people are saying the "graphics" are better on the ipad version, are they referring to the UI only. Or, are the actual game graphics of the terrain, brigades, etc better? Also, is the sound actually better on the ipad version too? V/R, UGGLOYALIST
  4. UGG Team, I'm really hoping for a the patch to be released tomorrow, for a great weekend! -V/R Loyalist
  5. UGG Team, We have been given bites of what the UGG IPAD version will entail. I love UGG on PC. However, It seems to be clear that UGG IPAD is not exactly the same. Can we please get a clear and full explanation of what will be different for the UGG IPAD version. For example, will the game be as deep? Is it sort of a more arcade friendly version of UGG on PC to appease more casual tablet gamers? From the language that has been used in previous posts about the Ipad version from UGG developers, these are some of the things that I am inferring. There is nothing wrong with trying to attract a different market on tablets. I understand that. But, it would not be something I would want to spend money on if that is the case. And money doesn't grow on trees. Please give us a clear and full list of how the ipad version is different so that there is no risk of misunderstanding and being displeased. Thanks!
  6. UGG Team, I have some questions about the upcoming IPAD version of the game. From what I have read so far, it seems like the game is very different with different missions and maps. What does this mean exactly. Is the IPAD version not going to be a direct port of the game? Is the Map different? Regards
  7. UGG Team, Thanks for the response! Looking forward to 1.03. Also, an Ipad version will be great! And of course. I am looking immensely forward to the next game, and I will continue loving this one until that comes out.
  8. UGG Team, I know I have asked this before. But, are you guys still planning on implementing 2v2, 3v3 multiplayer? This being implemented in this game is the one feature I am aware of that would bring in more people. Thanks for all the hard work! Version 1.02 so absolutely excellent!
  9. UGG Team, I know I have asked this before. But, are you guys still planning on implementing 2v2, 3v3 multiplayer? This being implemented in this game is the one feature I am aware of that would bring in more people. Thanks for all the hard work! Version 1.02 so absolutely excellent!
  10. UGG Team, I deleted all local files and deleted the game from steam, again, following the instructions, then I reinstalled and started playing. I played the custom multiplayer battle, the fight for two hills, against the AI and immediately had a freeze. However, I quit Steam after that and reopened it and started playing again. I played only custom multiplayer battles against the AI for a couple hours straight and had no freezing! This is what another player suggested on the steam forum, and he had the same results. I plan on playing quite a bit over the break and will let you know how it goes. If last night is an indication of freezing for the future, than I would say smashing good job gentlemen!
  11. Great News! I will be getting on tonight and will let you know UGG team!
  12. UGG team, I have had occasional freezing. As stated above, I am on a Macbook OS Yosemite. Do you have suggestions for me such as the solutions you have posted for Windows users? Like what Reg. Watkins posted just above. Thanks.
  13. Is anyone else using a Mac for this game? I have a Macbook and the game works wonderfully except for occasional freezing. What steps can I take on Mac to try and alleviate this? I have deleted and reinstalled, however, some of the other steps are for PC only and I don't know how to follow them on a Mac. If you have any insights I would much appreciate it! Thanks.
  14. UGG Team, Can you give mac instructions for this step: "Step 6 After installation, go into game folder as described in step 2 => Select game executables (single and multiplayer) => Right mouse button click and select "Properties" => Go into compatibility tab => Disable check box in compatibility mode panel if it is enabled." I am on Yosemite. Thanks!
  15. UGG Team, I have encounter NO issues. Playing perfectly for me. Great work. To those who are having issues. I suggest you follow the instructions posted in this thread to delete all content and install again.
  16. UGG Team, Do you have a new ETA? Later today? Couple more days?
  17. UGG Team, Any ETA on the re-release of 1.01?
  18. Darth and UGG Team, As I have said before, I would like to restate, thank you for this strategy masterpiece! I know it is very cliche to say, but, I have never joined any forums or cared to comment on any game until now. It is because you have created, what I feel, is the best strategy game I have ever played. And I have played many, searching for one that is worthy of my time. I am happy that I have found it, and I am very excited to see what you guys can offer in the future. As for Patch 1.01. Excellent job! Improvements all around. Especially the LOS for artillery. I hope that you will find the crashing issues soon so that I can be back on it soon. I felt the improvements in Patch 1.01 were so great, that returning to 1.0 was disheartening and I have found myself just waiting for 1.01 to be re-released. I would like to address a couple things that I have read others commenting about on the UGG/Steam forums. First, the map. I have read both naysayers of the map as well as others who really like it. Let me say that I think it is excellent! I would much rather play on one excellent, detailed map, which is full of tactical possibilities, than a bunch of okay-poor maps. Also, the map is has become very emotionally vesting, which, makes for much more memorable battles and skirmishes. The detail and being able to remember locations on the battlefield, which, you know will be very difficult to capture and/or hold, makes for an evolution in my tactics and strategy. I can say that my tactics and choices are much different after experiencing the map than when I started. Secondly, I do have some recommendations of my own. Below I have cited a source, which also has its own citations, describing the tactical superiority of the Napoleonic wars to the American Civil War. Now I am well aware that this is a ACW game. However, that being said, if it were possible, I think that this game would be greatly improved by being able to employ some of the tactics used during the Napoleonic Wars. Which, would add a great amount of flexibility to tactics and strategy in this game. I have chosen three main items to suggest. Of course I do not know how difficult it would be for the UGG team to implement these things. But, if it isn’t too difficult, I think it would add a lot of tactical versatility to the game. “Unlike Napoleonic and eighteenth century battle, all too often, Civil War combat degraded into a confused infantry firefight with officers gradually losing control, with any hope for maneuver lost. After the onset of confusion, shock action with the bayonet was not practical. Perhaps due to lack of training and discipline - an inevitability to some degree with a democratic government - it was always difficult to get men to close with the enemy. Once an infantry advance stopped in order to fire, it could rarely be made to continue forward. Prussian observer Justus Scheibert believed that a deficiency in lower level officers, who showed "ignorance of military things", explained why the brigade became the tactical unit of the war, "hence stiffness in the lines and clumsiness in management and direction of troops". Poor performance on the battlefield was the result, and "the loss of an upper-level commander would cripple (the) advance". He described an attacking infantry division as "like ghosts of days and ways of Frederick the Great.", in essence a poor man's version of mid 18th century methods. (Scheibert 49) He described a typical attack; ‘The nearer to the enemy, the more faulty the lines and the more ragged the first (line) until it crumbled and mixed with the skirmishers. Forward went this muddle leading the wavy rest. Finally the mass obtruded upon the point of attack. In a sustained, stubborn clash, even the third would join the melee. Meanwhile the usually weak reserve tried to be useful on the flanks, or stiffened places that faltered, or plugged holes. In sum it had been a division neatly drawn up. Now its units, anything but neat, vaguely coherent, resembled a swarm of skirmishers." (Scheibert 41) In contrast, Scheibert writes: ‘Prussian tactics freed (officers) to use their own minds... Liberated battalion and even company commanders could be the heads of tactical units, their own, and make them fight as right-thinking officers saw fit and as well-trained troops best could. The flexible line at the forward edge resembles a chain , then with detachable links under independent guidance. At crisis they can dismember into smaller and even the smallest units without disfunction... Our Prussian tactics thus gave our line officers energy, elasticity, and speed - to the entire army's benefit... Furthermore, diligent peacetime training provided our troops an abundance of formations, something to fit any circumstance... Lee, the first American to acknowledge this superiority, replied in the thick of Chancellorsville when I spoke with amazement at the bravery of Jackson's corps: 'Just give me Prussian formations and Prussian discipline along with it - you'd see things turn out differently here!" (Scheibert 49) An extreme example of how potentially decisive combat degraded into chaos is Brawner Farm. Jackson had the opportunity to attack and crush an isolated and much smaller Union division with his corps, but an indecisive firefight resulted, and because of Jackson's peculiarities, his subordinates feared to take the initiative and stood idly by while the opportunity to destroy a Union division was lost.” Retrieved from http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html To sum this up. My idea here is being able to split the brigades into, for example, three regiments in order to create more tactical possibilities. Maybe to try and create an even longer flanking maneuver. Perhaps, the negative of doing this is the regiments could lose morale easier. Just an idea. “Columns A misunderstanding of early English-speaking historians has distorted our understanding of a major aspect of Napoleonic warfare - the use of columns. Focusing on the Peninsula War and relying almost exclusively on British sources, some historians came to the misguided conclusion that the French primarily used battalions of infantry for shock action in columns of attack. As early as the mid 1700s the French were keeping their second line in column formation to allow for a flexible response to problems or opportunities on the first line. During the 1777 Battle of Brandywine, the British army, generally thought of as conservative, advanced on the rebels in maneuver columns then deployed into an open-order line. By Napoleonic times French infantry, preceded by skirmishers, advanced toward the enemy in battalion-sized columns for more flexibility and maneuverability on the battlefield, allowing them to adjust to enemy deployments, better seize opportunities, or attempt to flank the enemy line. Before contact with the enemy, however, the columns would deploy into line for the firefight. A bayonet charge in column formation was only done after gaining firepower superiority when the enemy troops looked shaky and on the verge of breaking. Against most armies, this method worked very well. The infantry's increased flexibility helped in other ways. The infantry columns also allowed much closer cooperation with the artillery, which was better able to mass against a portion of the enemy line or even move forward with the infantry. More importantly, closer co-operation with the cavalry was also possible. Unlike in the 18th century, cavalry could advance right along with the infantry, and the infantry was not restricted to an attack by the whole army.” Retrieved from http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html I think that this would be the easiest of my three suggestions to implement. The game already has columns moving faster than the battle line. So, if we could have a button to manually place brigades in columns or battle lines, that would make this possible. We could then keep our reserves in columns, to quickly respond to threats, or perform maneuvers, than order them into the battle line when we want. Much like manual targeting or the run commands, brigades could do their thing on their own with the AI, unless manually overridden by us. “Cavalry While 18th century cavalry was placed exclusively on the flanks, the new infantry columns allowed the mounted arm to advance in columns directly in support of the infantry, and even change places with them to lead the attack. To protect themselves. enemy infantry would form squares, but in so doing they deprived themselves of much of their firepower and their ability to maneuver. If artillery could be brought forward, the enemy squares would be blasted out of existence. Either way, a massive hole was formed in the enemy line, and decisive victory was assured.” Retrieved from http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html “In terms of grand tactics, Napoleon would typically threaten the enemy's flank, forcing him to commit his reserve. He always kept a large reserve available, a vitally important part of his system, to either exploit success or stave off defeat. Most often, with the enemy reserve committed, Napoleon would send his own reserve into the weak point in the enemy line and secure a decisive victory. Co-operation among all three combat arms was key to Napoleon's system, and the reserve decided the battle. Does this sound like Civil War tactics to you? No, far from it! Civil War armies kept few reserves, and Civil War combat featured little in the way of combined arms cooperation. Civil War tactics were NOT Napoleonic, at least not in the sense of Napoleon I.” Retrieved from http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/cwarmy.html My idea here, is what others on the forums have stated, the ability to have multiple formations for brigades. As stated above there are negatives and positives to doing this. It would allow a brigade to not be outflanked as easily, for example, if It were possible to put brigades into a square, but, then the brigade would be immobile and not able to use all of its fire power. My idea is precisely that. Being able to put a brigade into a square or an L to stop its side from being flanked. However, doing this would immobilize the brigade, in order to create a trade off scenario with such decisions. These are just ideas. In conclusion, I believe that adding these features would go a long way in giving us great tactical flexibility and would add a lot of depth to the game. If nothing else. Thank you for creating a truly awesome RTS game, which is the best I have ever played. Also, even if these suggestions would be too difficult to implement, if you could just implement the column manual button, that would be so great, and alone, add a lot of depth to the game. Thank you!
  19. UGG Team, Do you guys have any updates on this patch? When can we expect it? Really looking forward to it!
  20. Will the full patch notes be released when the patch comes out? Or will they come out sooner? Very excited for this patch!!!
  21. UGG Team, In response to OLee O'hara's post above, I had a multiplayer battle with someone on the "Conquer the Map" and the result at the end displayed "Victory" for both of us. Also, I found a bug. I was playing the "Arriving to Gettysburg" scenario and there had been a large skirmish in the valley between Herr's Ridge and McPherson's ridge. So, there were a lot of enemy bodies just north of the "Spangler" orchard in the open field. For the rest of the battle, whenever I had a brigade operating within range of this area, the brigade would fire in this direction, as if there was an enemy brigade there. There was never an enemy brigade even close to this area when this happened. Obviously, I am not sure why this happened. My best guess being that enemy bodies were registering as an alive/active brigade. Unfortunately, I do not have a screen shot or video of this. Also, I only saw this happen once in my 40+ hours of gameplay, and this was during a singleplayer game.
  22. UGG Team, Do you have an estimated date when the multiplayer will be expanded to include the campaign multiplayer and the co-operative gameplay between armies? I know it might be pointless to ask, because you might not want to release that information. But, I thought I would.
  23. Darth and Team, I overlooked this statement on the UGG homepage: "Evolving Multiplayer Experience The game currently offers 5 maps for 1vs1 matches and is continuously improved according to user feedback. Plans for the future are to expand to a campaign multiplayer and support co-operative gameplay between multiple armies." So disregard the last part of my previous post. I cannot wait for this to be implemented and I will definitely be able to convince some more colleagues to buy this game when this is in place. Really looking forward to it!
  24. Darth and Team, Great job on an excellent game! I purchased this game upon discovery and I have to say it is one of the best, and possibly the best RTS game I have ever played. Thank you for an excellent strategy game and one worthy of a strategy fan. I have a suggestion for multi-player. I think it would be absolutely excellent to be able to do 2v2 and 3v3 games. Each player could be in command of a single Corps.; and with an in game chat feature, for those on the same team, they could make their battle plans. This could be instituted for larger maps with no reinforcement scenarios, or say a division reinforcing the separate corps at one time or another. Please consider this. I believe it would make the multi-player scene more vibrant. I cannot rave enough about this game. I have been spreading its excellence by word of mouth and have gotten others to join. Thanks again for putting your passion and talent to action to bring us an example of a truly great strategy game.
×
×
  • Create New...