Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'scenarios'.
I just purchased NA and logged in for the first time. I was offered a choice between "War" and "Peace" scenarios. Chose former just for fun. After receiving my orders (captain injured by splinter, now I'm in command), I'm deposited into a screen with a huge sailing ship staring at me. Some of the keys appear to work: S/W, for example, for (un)furling sails. But a great many do not. And the boat doesn't go anywhere. It just sits in the water. In the bottom right corner is a black box labeled "F11 Bug" and a white dot in the middle. I don't get any option for tutorials, either - just the menu in the upper right corner with a summary of hot keys. Weirder still, when I exit completely out of the game and restart, this time choosing "Peace," I'm dumped right back into the same scenario and screen ... even though I expressly selected against combat this time. Little help? Tom
This is a comprehensive list of game scenarios, with linked info, aimed to help unfamiliar players make an image of the whole conflict. Work in Progress. List of American Civil War Battles Eastern Theater Historical Battles: 1st Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas) July 21, 1861 Battle of Gaines's Mill (1st Cold Harbor) June 27, 1862 Battle of Malvern Hill (Poindexter's Farm) July 1, 1862 2nd Battle of Bull Run (2nd Manassas) August 28–30, 1862 Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) September 17, 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg December 11–15, 1862 Battle of Chancellorsville April 30, 1863 Battle of Gettysburg July 1–3, 1863 Battle of Cold Harbor June 1, 1864 Custom Battles: Battle of Dunker Church September 17, 1862 Pickett's Charge July 3, 1863 Marye's Heights December 13, 1862 Battle of Philippi June 1, 1861 Potomac Fort (Aquia Creek) May 22, 1861 Mule Shoe (Spotsylvania) May 12, 1864 Devil's Den July 2,1863 Gettysburg, Day 1 July 1, 1863 Culp's Hill July 2, 1863 Stony Ridge August 29, 1862 Laurel Hill May 10, 1864 Cold Harbor, CSA right Flank (First Corps, Anderson) June 3, 1864 Western Theater Historical Battles: Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing) April 6–7, 1862 Battle of Stones River (2nd Murfreesboro) December 31, 1862 Battle of Chickamauga September 18–20, 1863 Custom Battles: Nashville Pike January 2, 1863 Hardin Pike December 15, 1864 Chickamauga, Day 1 September 18, 1863 Hornet's Nest April 6, 1862 Career Battles: 1861 1st Manassas Campaing Potomac Fort (Aquia Creek) May 22, 1861 1 Corps, 10-9 Brigades Newport News June 15, 1861 1 Corps, 0/3 Brigades 1st Battle of Bull Run (1st Manassas) July 21, 1861 1 Corps, 0/4 Brigades 1862 1st Western Campaing Ambush Convoy September 29, 1861 1 Corps, 0/10 Brigades Stay Alert February 25, 1862 1 Corps, 0/10 Brigades Battle of Shiloh (Pittsburg Landing) April 6, 1862 1 Corps, 0/20 Brigades 1st Winchester May 25,1862 Cross Keys June 8, 1862 Port Republic June 9, 1862 Cedar Mountain August 9,1862 Manassas Depot August 27, 1862 Chantilly September 1, 1862 Weapons Factory September 12, 1862 Corinth October 3, 1862 Prairie Grove December 7, 1862 Everettsville December 20, 1862 Blackwater Heights March 15, 1863 1st Franklin April 10, 1863 Rio Hill 25 April, 1863 Salems Church May 3, 1863 Brandy Station June 9, 1863 Siege of Jackson July 11, 1863 Mansfield April 8,1864 Saunders Farm May 5,1864 Hall's Ferry September 14, 1864 Hardin Pike December 15, 1864 Battle of Richmond Battle of Washington April 10, 1865 Would appreciate some feedback, completion and fixing of inconsistencies (not sure if all links refer to the proper battle)... My objective would be, separate the battles by date, and organize them by Theater.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg has the immense potential to support an entire series of epic, blockbuster, Civil War battle games of unique realism, historical accuracy, and player engagement and enjoyment. But there is a problem or two that stands like a roadblock to that success: I have mentioned some of these problems in previous posts. But, now I have come to realize there is an absolute game stopper sitting right in front of us. This flaw is so impactful and over-powering, it drowns out the many good things in the UGG design. It can well keep this design from ever being accepted by the larger RTS community. Let me illustrate: Look what happens in every game: The situation reveals itself; forces arrive to the battlespace; they maneuver, they fight, they advance or withdraw; and victory is declared. And then the lights go out. When the curtain is raised on the next “act” of this play, we are faced with a whole new scene, set, and premise. It is like the first act never happened. From scenario to scenario, there is no AI “analysis” determining the starting positions for the next game. In fact, the absurdity of the non-historical historical scenarios is damningly demonstrated by the fact that when the next scenario starts, the two sides are not where we left them; they are not even in contact with each other. Hell, they not even in eyesight if each other on the entire battle field. Now, think of the three-day history of the battle, with fixed lines from flank to flank. Did that EVER occur in the real battle? Think about that for a minute, HARD: Here we have the main battle forces of both sides knocking each other silly, going toe-to-toe for hours. Then, the bell rings, the game is over, and the stage—literally—goes black. When the curtain rises again for Act Two, there is no enemy opposition of any size to be seen anywhere on the map. The enemy force that was deeply engaged with you on a seven-mile front is nowhere to be seen on the battlefield and there is no clue as to where they might have removed themselves. The entire enemy army has VANISHED! What is wrong with this picture? Everything! This throws any semblance of historical accuracy right out the window. Regardless of the tactical actions of the player or players, no matter how atypical or eccentric the maneuverings or battle outcomes, the opposition has magically disengaged, disentangled, and vaporized into thin air, into thin air! The arbitrariness and implausibility of this unavoidable start to every scenario is even more staggering when one considers (a) how difficult it was during the ACW to disengage from an enemy once combat had been joined by major forces; and, ( the absurd assumption thrust upon the players by the game’s designers that states that both sides would implicitly want to disengage and run away from each other regardless of the tactical situation. One of the primary duties of skirmishers (which, as I have previously reported, are not functionally represented in UGG) was to keep eyes on the enemy battle line opposite and report any critical movements, advances, withdrawals, or shifts that the enemy commander may attempt. To think that at 3:00 in the afternoon of July 1, Meade’s Army of the Potomac would simply vanish without leaving so much as a dust trail behind is just plain silly. What is equally as puzzling is why the Alpha playtesters, the Beta users, and the buying public have not screamed like stuck pigs at this artifice is equally amazing. It hits you in the face every time you start a subsequent scenario after Day 1, Scene 1. I do not think that the company, with its whole future at stake, has been well served by a group of testers who appear to be, as a whole, enthusiastic, well-read, erudite, experienced game players. And I do not know why they did not do a better job pointing out this fatal flaw. One of the critical duties of a good playtester, and I’ve managed hundreds of them in my career, is to think critically, respond skeptically, be the Devil’s Advocate, share honest opinions freely, and, most importantly, TELL THE TRUTH to the folks in charge without worrying that they will kick you off the team for being too negative. I have learned over the years that playtester feedback—good, bad, or indifferent—is worth its weight in gold and is absolutely critical to a design’s success. The UGG designers and developers are neck-deep in alligators trying to drain the proverbial swamp. They cannot see the forest for the trees. That is why they absolutely depend upon a group of well-briefed, well-directed, well-coached, testers--who know what their job is and how critical that job is to the success of the game--to show them the way and act as the acid test for their brain child. Something went off the tracks here. Maybe it was a new design team underestimating the time and effort required to playtest a new design. Maybe it was production deadlines truncating development schedules; maybe it was a belief that playtesters should be game virgins, naïfs, and innocents to be effective; I simply do not know. The UGG game design and game engine has SO MUCH potential, it makes my head ache. At this point, the guys in the back room need to realize that insight and brilliance is a wonderful thing, but it needs to be balanced with practical know-how and experience getting a viable game design out the door and into customer’s hands. Developing on the backs of your “early adopter” customers is an abuse of your best customer base. Paying customers do not like to be guinea pigs for poorly developed designs. Serious improvements need to occur that go well beyond the next “patch.” There are fixable, yet fundamental, flaws in the current design that cannot be repaired by patches. A Version 2.0 needs to be undertaken that address the suite of historical scenarios, a Campaign Game, real unit specialization, skirmishers, and features that enhance hardcore user aesthetics and AAR reflection. A true multi-player/multi-side function would be nice also. As it currently stands, UGG’s ability to even roughly simulate the real battle is nearly zero. And that is in fact due to deliberate, but wildly misguided, decisions by the developers to come up with a hokey, screwy, scenario system that can’t even loosely replicate the real battle situations as it unfolded. (One of the advantages of the old board wargames was that we could move units around the mapboard and step through the real historical campaign to demonstrate whether the real battle could be replicated by our simulation design in terms of space/time/resources. It was very useful. Apparently, that is a problem with computer games.) This is a game stopper. As it stands now, you cannot even broadly replicate the Battle of Gettysburg with this game design. Guys, you got a good thing here—potentially—but we need to talk. Can this game be saved? Yes, but the “not invented here” egos have to be put away and the designers on the other side of the world have to realize they have to tap into a wealth of game design and development experience here in the States who can help them make this game the winner it can be for the US market. If you haven’t walked the battlefield, then it’s like you are trying to perform brain surgery from 10,000 kilometers away. Possible, but not very likely to be successful. Enjoy!
I played today against the lowest AI level (confed) as union and took part in 4 scenarios. I did not click anything just watched for fun,I got a major victory overall. Perhaps even the most conservative confed level should eventually try something. In the last scenario picketts troops arrive, line up and just wait. The scenario ends with my union victory and an overall gettysberg victory. I'll some other AI types and sides to see how far i can go and win. Rich P.S. Did anyone try to win by just double clicking on the corps comanders, i.e. no individual unit controls. I used to do that in SMG back 10 years ago.