GShock

I honestly have no idea what these guys are talking about but I presume either or all of them should have done as I did, simply talk only about what's worth talking. Don't let the thread derails. If one posts anything that could lead to flames, ignore and discuss only about the rest.

That behavior is truly sad and over the line but it looks clear David has a bitter relationship with the DEVs and the game, God knows why. In his comments I always tried to ignore the criticism that leads to nowhere but I appreciated the fact he wasn't censored because it's the right way to handle criticism and manage forums. I seem to understand he's unsatisfied about the campaign progress throughout TIME. I mean between one battle and another. I am unsatisfied too and proposed a solution but it appears that this solution isn't good either. Then I checked and I didn't see an alternate proposal and this left me puzzled. UGG is supposed to build 4 days of combat with different engagements in these 4 days that are tactically connected to one another. This means it is supposed to build a dynamic campaign. Even an engine of this simplicity on a very small theater, such an enterprise is beyond the means of this DEV team and if you carefully look at Creative Assembly, just to name a famous and HUGE DEV House, their campaign doesn't seem to be working either... and we're talking not only of a hundred times bigger manpower but also an experience in developing the same engine that exceeds 10 years. The only viable alternative, in my opinion, is to build a hundred scenarios (branches) to insert in the campaign and let the engine select which is more appopriate to jump to, after the results of the prelude, while carrying on the losses of each side from one scenario to the other. Now building a hundred scenarios (and test them for accuracy, balance and presumed hypothetical historicity) is a huge undertaking by itself and that's why I proposed to release a map editor (not one where you can change the map but one where you can select which parts of the map are in use and where to place VPs) and an OOB editor (where you can select which segments of the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia will be pitted together) so that the community (us all) can build "custom battles" that the DEVS (and the DEVS only) may insert in the game. I express harsh criticism, in this particular case, mitigated by the realistic expectations I have from this game, but I also propose solutions. Harsh criticism by itself, as harsh as it can get, seems more pointless and self-embarassing than useful. What's the point of criticizing something you have already criticized with an increased "harsh rate"? If there's no point there's no reason to do it at all... no? It's his point I don't understand in doing what he did.

It is at all possible to retropatch UGG with the new "technologies" discussed here that will be built for the new game. I think the DEVs are satisfied for the release of a new engine that has got a huge potential. Fixing this and that here in UGG and moving on to a new scenario is the fastest way to survive in the business but if they fix this and that in UGG, port new things into the new title and these new things are retropatched here, UGG will be a seller for over a decade. I'd like many things to change too but we've got to face reality of business. The path to improve UGG will be slow but success is what matters. Consequently, the IOS version is close to release and the many good things it has will probably be ported to the PC version. The IOS is very different and extremely enjoyable. It is only natural to focus on this release first and the things that are already in, do not need much hassle to go to the PC. THEN can we talk of improving them both, slowly, as the next title gets built. Most likely, this process in the curtain will bring new little changes to UGG. Then UGG becomes the stable platform to test mechanisms for the new game and when THAT is released, all its stuff can be "ported back" to UGG. It's a "engine 1.0" right now until next title is released. Patience is the virtue of the strong.

My idea is the tree where the prelude is the trunk. There can be many outcomes depending on the side who wins but also on how many objectives are taken by that side and what the losses % were for both side. That puts you on one of the X branches that depart from that tree and here I'd already give an option on which battle to fight of the following Y branches (X<Y), which puts you again on a smaller branch out of N possible branches (objs and losses as above). That goes on and on until you get to the leaf which is the end of the campaign. Computing the losses and and VPs into the possible X, Y, N etc. that can be chosen, the engine brings you to the next battle to be fought (branch) but the choice on which branch to fight rests on the player. At this point it's all a matter of creating 50+ hypotetical scenarios in the same area covered by the map. Every battle takes you to a smaller branch and, in the end you get to the leaf where the overall computation of VPs taken and losses given (and taken) happen, which decides the side that won the campaign. I'm putting my efforts entirely on the IOS version for the release, you guys are probably talking of a PC game that has vastly changed since the last time I saw it, keep that in mind when you read what I say about the dynamic campaign.

Anything may be justified by something that makes sense. If next scenario starts with Culp's Hill having switched side, with an explanation like "Due to the heavy losses sustained and in view of the approaching of our own army to Gettysburg, Gen. Meade decided to withdraw to a more favorable position which is both fortified and now reinforced". I think what matters the most is the losses but here, in the dynamism of the campaign many factors that are currently not fully developed are not in place and I still consider the PC version a work in progress. In order to make what you said happen, David, we'd need a new scenario for Culp's Hill decisive battle. Practically the battle starts with the prelude and we have 2 options. Consider the prelude like the trunk of a big tree. It now only has 2 branches and for a "what if" that properly worked it should have 5. Each of these 5 branches should have 5 branches too and each of the latter should have 5. ALL of your observations are correct. If the team released a map, obj and OOB battle an entire campaign can be built and I think this is a good idea, provided then the team can assess the validity of such 3rd party campaign and it's the DEVs and the DEVs alone who may then introduce it into a future patch to replace the one we have now. We are talking of 1(prelude) +5 (possible outcomes) +5 (where 1 of these is ONE of the 5 previous possible outcomes) and so on. It's hundreds of scenarios. It takes a whole community to build it properly. To make another example, it's like an RPG book where you've given 2 pages at the end of the paragraph, 2 choices only. Each of these 2 choices brings to dozens more, which are built in hundreds of pages and then these all concur towards a single page where the main plot resumes after the result of either path are complete. By analogy, we have the hundreds of pages already written (it's the engine) but we haven't got the MANY choices that would correctly make the "what if" scenario developed. After all, it's a description, a map with objs and an OOB (but you do realize neither the community nor the DEVs can do this OOB right now because it requires a window with options to select/deselect/merge/disband that is currently missing), then the engine computes the results (VP + losses) and picks the next scenario. If you have 5 to pick from it's something. If you have 2, it's rather obvious that many things won't make sense. You are obviously right in your observations, I am just wondering if the DEVs are going to allow the community of players to develop the 3 choices missing out of the 5. And mind it's 5 per side (USA wins OR CSA wins the engagement), so that means a lot of scenarios need be built. The whole concept implies modding which is always great but wouldn't this modding tamper with possible DLCs? I think not. DLC includes map, leader and units. We're just talking of working out more possible battles within the Gettysburg scenario. There's definitely a big choice to be taken here but I think this is the way the problem should be addressed: community based "what if scenarios" evaluated, then inserted.

Ohhhh... some info for the next PC patch?

He definitely won't be disappointed.

The point is valid but in a "what if" scenario anything may happen. I would focus more on how things develop from one scenario to the next, what kind of battle and where the troops will spawn. This HAS been mentioned and I think they're working on that but at present time all the attention is on (and it has to be on) the Ipad version (which I can't for the love of me stop playing ahahahahahah).

Yes it does look and it does work fantastic indeed.

Perhaps the easiest way is to change the ratio between real time and game time. If a battle lasts 5' in real time, AKA the day of battle of 5 hours shrunk into 5' of real time, making the day last 10 minutes would be possible and that means if you let things run at the standard game time, there'll be double the ammunition for any unit. However, judging that it's important to keep the reloading times accurate, a good soldier can fire 3 shots per minute and 5 hours in real time is many shots... there has to be a counterbalance and there actually is. It's called the routed state (in TW gaming terms "shattered". Units should be routing away from the enemy (much away!) and, in doing so, turn exhausted it means they'll have to rest then cover more distance to come back into the fight. That cuts down this double time of the example in which that unit can fire. The problem of cannons is that their effectiveness is good now against the crew but it doesn't allow that critical shot that knocks out the gun itself and ALL of its crew. There's a reported instance at Antietam (IIRC) where a direct hit knocked out the gun, causing 20 casualties. Those poor fellows were littering the ground all over the place. By knocking out more guns you make the arty ineffective without needing to limit its ammunition (which, however, is still the best choice to take). Problem here is that superior training of CSA was shadowed by a superior firepower for USA. With "same-ammo" this kind of advantage is neglected so, even without a reloading mechanism, limiting ammo seems the only logical choice. Perhaps a simulated, scripted, reload, would do. Something that works like the reinforcements that appear on the field at given time... now at given time, ammo is reinstated. You get the message but you don't see supply carts or anything of the sort. Since scripts can be taylored, USA could be resupplied more often, even indefinitely (which means as soon as it's over, 5' later the ammo is back), while CSA could run out at some point in time.

I am more concerned about artillery barrages that had to be cut short because of low ammo. That kind of ammo, I mean. We're building a game that portraits the battle of Gettysburg but, obviously, after the 1st day with the historical setting, the rest should be "What if" and evolve dynamically. This historical beginning, however, should portrait the lower supply levels of CSA but it can't with unlimited ammo... in fact, the confederate guns (which were both less supplied, less numerous and less technologically proficient) shoot exactly the same number of rounds that USA does... this is why I'd like time to be slowed down, let more options come to strategy of the players and, of course, this means they can't have unlimited ammo. This about ammo is a big change from the initial game philosophy I would welcome and I explained why I think time has to be tied to it.

I agree time is just too fast. With this time settings, CSA is compelled to rush for the objectives without any chance of alternative strategies. Considering the player may not select his initial deployment, the result is that every battle looks almost always the same. You basically don't have time to get to an objective in any but the most straightforward and predictable of the ways. The only apparent freedom you have is when you select your artillery targets. If time was slowed down (which means everything is slowed down: reload/fire rates, movement, rally/rest, etc.) it wouldn't change much but you can't simply give extra minutes to fight the battle because that messes up the current balance, based on unlimited ammunition. Increasing the time limit by 5 minutes and, consequently applying the reduction *in proportion* to time lapsing seems a good idea but there will finally be a limit that can't be pushed without implementing a system of limited ammunition and resupply (both of which would be most welcome).

Indeed an important observation this about time compression. With the pace being so fast, you can't really rest the troops and you have very little room for manouvering because not only is the time compressed but also limited, which means you must take the most direct route to an objective. I would welcome a nice slowing down but do mind that things are right now balanced this way. If time becomes unlimited then ammo should go limited or balance will be lost.

Thoris, the game is just out and it's in its "ironing bugs out" phase. It's very likely the engine will be used for other battles of the civil war and it could very well be used for ANY kind of battle in human history with some adjustments. However, at this point in time no future intent has been revealed yet. All in due time.

LOL, you guys are in for MANY surprises very soon.

Yup, happy new year to the DEVs and to all UGG players! :-)

Busy testing Ipad version but I suppose the problem should appear here too, I didn't see it. Post pictures/videos to help id the issue and I'll try to replicate it.

Your post on the "work in progress" was dated 17th. It's ok, the Ipad version is just as great.

Sharpshooters should have a higher range and yes a higher chance to hit generals, however do note that most DIV generals are not in right now, as for the BDE generals, they were so close to the lines that they got killed by all kinds of shooters. Probably we'll see both in the near future.

The tooltip for map features is a great idea we already submitted but it's not a priority because there's bigger things to work on, in my opinion. The LOS is a genuinely huge suggestion I share with you and we've been discussing about it for weeks now. I'm sure we'll have some fixes in that department. From the looks of the Ipad version, the game has changed for the better (a LOT for the better!) and it's a great testing platform to port new features into the PC version. I hope to see some patch before Xmas.

Theoretically, if he has the paypal purchase receipts they could link them to his account. From my experience this takes weeks but in the end it works... if he sent the game codes it's basically the same but it's a big pain to wait. There's no live chat nor phone and they answer very slowly at times.

Are you still bogged down by Steam? What did their tech support say?

Good God, look at the Intro he made!!!

There's nothing you can do. The helpdesk should get back to you to explain why it was locked and what can be done to restore it. I once forgot the password and it took them a week to give it back to me.... for some reason the mail for the pw reset was not reaching me.

Guys, you've got to add the DC if not the BC... Heth's division without Heth and having AP Hill on the field seems a bit offset. We already have the sprites, just make it smaller (less horses), if it's not right now, please do it for the 1.04. Then, you can give every player a different DC so that in multi-division fight, we can really have XvsX players in Multiplayer. (what matters is that if a player drops out, the remaining player takes over the "dropped" division). Have you guys thought of implementing the Co-Op multiplayer type?