Concerns about the final result.

[squishband]

One of the things I'm becoming concerned about as I play the game and read the forum is what the end product is going to play like. It's my belief that the best works, work best because there is a strong vision behind them; informing every part of the design process. Ultimately I suppose, I think that the algorithm is just as good a way of expressing one's individual understanding of the world and communicating that to other people, as other things that lead to art!

Stay with me.

Personally, what exited me about UGG, was the fact that there was very little micromanagement. I'm old now and I just can't keep up with an opponent who can always win because they have 'super fast processing power' (I have lots of experience, but I express it slowly). I prefer a game that, if it's at a strategic level, is just that and gives me time to make decisions that I can trust my forces to carry out (more or less reliably). Conversely at a tactical level, I'd like to be able to make almost all of the decisions. I want to be either General or Lieutenant, but not both at the same time.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like the strategic elements of this game to be discrete from the tactical; if we're going to have a supply train, I really don't want to see it or have to deal with it on the battlefield. My worry about this process (the forum and debates), is that the pressure to please everyone might push the developers towards something that loses sight of the story they were originally trying to tell.

Of course I might be quite wrong about what I perceive this to have been, in which case...

I'll just go on enjoying myself ;-)

[David Fair]

The pause key is always an option to slow down the action!   

 

 

Note that last time I looked most players are still against ammunition supply train because it would introduce more tactical micromanagement.   

 

The trouble I've seen with the supply train advocates is that each of the votes for the supply system proposes a feature-rich-fantasy-micromanagement-system they "like" that has nothing to do with the reality of the logistics of Gettysburg.   

 

It might be that people just want to put their personal stamp on the game with their preferences from other games. 

 

Hopefully UGG will remain a brigade-level game that stands on its own merits without a fictional supply system. 

 

 

I wasn't sure which box to check above so I'll defer my vote to your discretion.

[DerMeister]

I want a supply system, but not one I have to manage. The whole point is to apply broad brush tactics and let the individual Officers deal with the details.

As such, I'd like to see a basic system where a line is drawn from wherever either the center of gravity of your forces or the edge of the map you came from. And this line cannot be near an enemy unit of course. The length of this line would help determine the speed in which your condition increases. If a line cannot be drawn (read: encirclement), then that unit rapidly looses condition.

That way you still have to make resupply possible as a general, but not actually do it directly. I want nothing to do with micromanagement.

[soccercw]

You can't have it both ways lol. If you consider that condition factors in ammo you're getting a variable you don't have to micromanage

[DerMeister]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I am saying that condition factors ammunition. So instead of a supply system on ammunition, my concept deals with the unit's condition as a simulation of being well supplied and automatically figures out how well supplied that unit would be based on it's position, proximity to enemy fire, and proximity to the main force. All this is done behind the scenes, as it would in reality be done by officers.

[David Fair]

DerMeister, sorry I'm a bit slow today.  

 

I think I agree with your observation.  The further a unit gets out of touch with the army the less condition it can recover and it recovers this condition at reduced rates.

 

It seems like your issue is that you don't want units to be able to operate independently (videttes/skirmishers?).  Or that if they do operate independently that they can't resupply/recover their "condition" easily and fight in the rear of the enemy army continuously.  

 

This would force the armies to act cohesively like an army instead of random molecules.  

 

Did I get it right?

[RogueLeader]

Since this patch the game has changed so much I quit playing and would not recomend it now.  What was fun is not fun anymore a game can mirror exactly real warfare but if it zaps the fun out of it you got a game no one will play.  The Devs are listening to a fanbase crying for features with 3 hours in game to sad to see this happening.  It seems great at first but all the extra stuff is not.

[soccercw]

Rogue feel free to list the "game changing" things in this patch that would cause you to quit

[squishband]

Thanks for your responses so far.

 

The supply train was just an example and I wouldn't want this thread to get bogged down with it, but it could be anything.

 

I'm also interested to hear how @Rogue feels things have changed (and glad that you are still here despite your dissapointment); it seems to me that you see where I'm coming from, although I'm not there with you yet.

 

Perhaps the focus of my concerns is best expressed as 'I'm not sure people power is the best way to design games: Discuss'.

[RogueLeader]

I dont know exactly soccercw, 30 some hours in game patch came out I started playing and realized this sucks now compared to before.  Hey just my opinion if new buyers want a bunch of changes so be it.  It was only 10 bucks and those 30 hours was the most fun I have had with a game since Med2.  Money well spent.  I realize this is not the final version I think others will get the same feeling and the Devs will look at things a little more closely at least I hope they will as before release.

[soccercw]

Well don't give up on it. Just voice your opinions and provide specifics. You'll find you may not be alone. Plenty of games make changes and go back to small things that worked better before

[Nick Thomadis]

Since this patch the game has changed so much I quit playing and would not recomend it now.  What was fun is not fun anymore a game can mirror exactly real warfare but if it zaps the fun out of it you got a game no one will play.  The Devs are listening to a fanbase crying for features with 3 hours in game to sad to see this happening.  It seems great at first but all the extra stuff is not.

Hello Rogue Leader,

 

Can you please elaborate on the things you find now annoying in terms of gameplay? I remind that the game is still early access and all recommendations are taken into notice so we improve accordingly, but only if they are explained.

[soccercw]

Rogue, based on your previous posts and the things you like about the game, I'm surprised you did a magic 180.

"Losses seem right you have to know how to flank to inflict heavy losses alot of people dont understand this idea" - Agree here, don't think this has been tinkered with except to nerf the Reb forces a bit.

 

"Retreating seems right on I would run like hell too if my whole unit took off" - Still one of my favorite parts about the game.  The condition + morale bars are what sets this from others.  Just because you haven't taken massive casualties, manuevering and fighting still beats up a brigade physically.  The fact that units will fall back a bit to regroup before suffering 90% casualties is perfect

 

"My only problem would be figuring out elevation as well as others, maybe a colored line at the highest point on hills so I know where to position my arty and units best.  The old Avalon Hill board games had colored hexes that showed the highest elevation on a particular area" - This is still valid.  It's the major complaint I've gotten from my friend who I got to play and test the game out with me.  It's very hard to find what good positioning is.  The map is gorgeous but unlike some other games (mainly SMG), elevation is not as easy to point out or find.  Maybe something as simple as holding a hot key will have a small box appear that shows you the elevation your mouse is currently pointing at.  This way you can pause, hold the key, and scroll around an area to get a better idea of the land.

 

 

 

To go from great suggestions to saying you wouldn't even suggest someone try the game is a bit over the edge.  Yes, the game is going to change before it comes out.  Darth wouldn't be doing his due dillegence if he didn't try highly suggested ideas. If they turn out to ruin the gameplay a bit then he can always go back to how a certain feature used to be.  It's called development   stay with it and keep suggesting and pointing out things that need to be fixed (or were changed and now are worse)

[admin]

I dont know exactly soccercw, 30 some hours in game patch came out I started playing and realized this sucks now compared to before.  Hey just my opinion if new buyers want a bunch of changes so be it.  It was only 10 bucks and those 30 hours was the most fun I have had with a game since Med2.  Money well spent.  I realize this is not the final version I think others will get the same feeling and the Devs will look at things a little more closely at least I hope they will as before release.

 

To find the right value you need to change the gameplay and experiment. We of course filter player feedback and stick to the product vision. Some experiments could fail and will revert. 

Would be helpful if you can provide specifics of what are the reasons of "hate" with the new patch.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I will say this my mouse curser has been acting strange since the last update. When I click and drag my Brigades it is not as crisp. It is almost like a delay when I click and drag the arrow and route my unit takes is not exactly where my mouse curser is if that makes sense. They are off about a inch.

[soccercw]

REB it's certainly off for infantry brigades. Bug has been reported. I haven't noticed it affecting generals or artillery but that may be just me

[CharlieChap]

Just bought the game and like some aspects.

 

Very clear and crisp order system with the arrows  and nice graphics for the Unity engine.

 

Its got a lot of potential to be a fast fun playing strategic overview game of Gettysburg. Possibly even a game that one could play against non-wargamers.

 

There is of course another game that covers this battle. Scourge of war: Gettysburg.  

That covers this is tremendous detail, has a very complicated supply system and the most complex command & FOW system of any PC game I have ever encountered, and is way beyond mainstream in complexity (they use it as a training aid at WestPoint).  Its a good 'game' for those that want tactical detail and realism.  But its complexity means that it is barely a 'game' but more of a history lesson....

Engagements can take 10-20 minutes of musketry exchanges between regiments for results and to play the entire battle would probably take about 3 days !.

 

Perfect General can be a lot more fun at the fast paced Strategic level that it  appears to aim for.

Giving a very good overview of the whole battle (which is not realistic ....confusion and Fog Of War meant that the Commanders  had  far less idea of what was going on, ( search for and look at the vagueness of Lee's orders for an idea .) but it makes for a fun 'game'.

 

I don't think this is negative, different games about similar subjects are good but they should not try to do the same thing,  if people want ultra detail and realism, they should look at the above title, it  does what it does well, to try to make Perfect general:Gettysburg do what SOW:Gettysburg already does would really detract from Perfect general, which has a lot that is good about it.

 

Squishband's post is a good one. Perfect General:Gettysburg with the Unity engine has the potentail to be a very good game, but the limitation of the Unity engine mean that too much attempt to go into detail and make it a 'simulation' would wreck it.

[thekev506]

Just picked up the game and am really enjoying it, joined the forums so I could be involved in the game's discussion.

 

I'm not too keen on the idea of micromanagement either; this is more a strategic than tactical game in my eyes, and one way to address this would be a slight adjustment to the pace of the game.  Right now (and this was mentioned in RPS, too) I struggle to keep up with the management of my units once the scale of the battles ramp up a little.  The game is simply moving too quickly, both in terms of fighting and actual movements, for me to effectively keep eyes on everything at once!  Maybe I'm just a slowpoke, but to me the pace feels a little unrealistic; I'd like those pre-engagement manoeuvres and counter-manoeuvres to be a little more deliberate and weighted.

 

As for supply train and ammo, here's my 2 cents.  Have a 'supply wagon' for each side at their starting points on the map that cannot move.  This wagon has an area of effect like a corps commander, but instead of replenishing morale it replenishes ammunition and condition.  Very simple solution that would encourage taking infantry off front-line duties to rest and rearm without overcomplicating the process.  Having a 'low ammo' icon above a unit when their ammunition reaches a certain threshold (say 10%) also means you could ascertain this information at a glance, rather than clicking through every unit and checking their stats.