Concerns on Realism

[Maus]

Usually, when I play a game which needs improvement or further development, I am afraid the developers are not going to listen to their community. Ultimate General: Gettysburg is the first game I've ever played where I am afraid the developers will listen to their community.

 

Based on the feedback I'm seeing over on the Steam forums, I feel like the community is too inexperienced with the game, and when they fail they blame the game for being too fast or too unrealistic.

 

There is a group of people, overlapping with that other, who are asking for more realism, and while they're generally polite and there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting that kind of experience, I want to speak up for those of us who love the game as it is, for what it is.

 

I've been following UGG for some time now, aware of its developer's roots in Darthmod, because it seemed to match my vision of what the Total War series should have been all along. It is exactly that, and I love it. I don't want it to be changed. I do not want ammunition or supply lines or someone's idea of realism. I own and enjoy many military simulations, but I did not, do not want a detailed strategic game in Ultimage General. I wanted a tactical battles game without all of the cruft and baggage and design flaws of the Total War series, and I don't care if it's the Battle of Gettysburg or the Battle of Hastings.

 

That's exactly what I got. I love it, and I hope Game Labs goes on to make many more games just like this, with themes of history, but without trying to replicate and simulate history. It is a fun game, and everything I wanted. Thank you.

[soccercw]

Maus, spoken perfectly. I have my scourge of war, my old talonsoft series, and others for my deep strategy. SMG was loved for having that prefect mix of fun and history and I've been waiting ever since for something updated to top it. You're exactly right, adding things like detailed supply will only take away from what it seems it wants to be

[David Fair]

Hi Maus, you know the game is under development and estimated by the design team to be about 60%-70% (I think) complete?

 

Its going to experience change - some good, some less good.  It's part of the development process.

 

I'm not an advocate of introducing more "realism" as much as I'm an advocate of reducing un-realism.  Implementation abstractions are necessary for a great and playable game.  UGG is on the right path.  

 

But, if something didn't exist or couldn't happen at Gettysburg it shouldn't be in the game (e.g., a Panzer division).  In previous versions you could simply mass artillery, blast a hole in the AI's lines, then charge with infantry.  The net result was predictably silly.  

 

You're the beneficiary of 6 months of testing and an enormous amount of historical information that has helped address some of these issues.  In my view if you like the current game it is because of the process of iteration and change.

 

One of the things that makes history games difficult is if you don't use history as a guide for implementation parameters the games all start to lose their unique discriminators.  These discriminators are what make the American Civil War different from the English Civil War.

 

It would not be interesting IMO to play a game of "Hastings" that had artillery from Gettysburg for example.  In the current game there is a raging debate regarding videttes, skirmishers, artillery etc...  Why?  Because if the game is titled "Gettysburg" and it should kind of reasonably resemble the battle of Gettysburg.  

 

There are still some things that are seriously out of whack and should be modified.  For example the AI on aggressive settings continued to attack long after they are outnumbered by 2:1 odds or more.  It is not much fun to play a slaughter-fest of the AI.  There are only so many Epic Victories you can take before the game isn't challenging or interesting.  Another example, artillery during the war inflicted about 8% of battlefield casualties.  If the game is resulting in 35% casualties it fundamentally alters the game balance.  If the net result is the Union wins every game on July 2 at 10:00 am because the CSA is running out of infantry due to excessive casualties from artillery, then the game needs to be adjusted in favor of more historically accurate results.

 

I'm not looking at the Steam Forum so I'm not clear on your concerns.  I do agree there are alot of armchair generals that advocate changes without a sound rational or historical basis.  I'm not a fan of the law of unintended consequences.

 

On the UGG Forum it seems to me this is all good stuff in the quest for a balanced, interesting, and fun historical title.  I don't see history, game, and fun as mutually exclusive design sets.  The goal is to iterate within the envelope of this design troika.

[squishband]

As usual, I should have checked whether anyone has started a similar thread before posting 'Concerns about the final result'. Anyway, I think we have the same concerns, and perhaps the same reasons for them.

[Maus]

[Lots of Stuff]

 

I am well aware. I only came to say that I'm very pleased with the game's current state and design philosophy, and I am wary of that section of the community advocating for something different.

 

A simple example, from the Steam forums, is an argument that units should be automatically punished for running around behind enemy lines. The idea that a system of supply and rigid command should be instigated, which would cause these units to lose condition and morale, to keep this from happening is short-sighted. A lone unit running around behind enemy lines might be unrealistic, but it's also easy to both prevent and defeat such tactics in the game as it stands. The reason it's unrealistic is because it's a bad idea, and it's a bad idea because it's punishable. But that means you must punish your opponent when he or she or it overextends.

 

As an example, I saw one preview from a player who obviously prefers more simulationist gameplay. When the Union AI sent vedettes behind his lines after his artillery, his response was, "Well *that's* not very realistic! The Confederate army would destroy them if they did that!" And then he (the Confederate army) ignored them! They, of course, never got destroyed but instead routed his artillery and cost him the battle.

 

The AI did this to me as well, when I was new to the game, and I am happy to admit that. But I changed my tactics. Now it is not a problem, and outside of the first battle where there are few units, I don't even think about it. It rarely happens, and if it does I punish the AI for overextending. I have even destroyed units to the last man.

[Grotius]

Hey Maus, I pretty much agree with you.  I think there are different types of realism.  Scourge of War, and its "HQ in the Saddle", offers a lesson in how hard it must have been to command from horseback, without a birds-eye view.  To my mind, Ultimate General provides a different sort of realism: it does a great job of modeling the ebb and flow of the battle.  It also moves fast enough that I can play the whole battle of Gettysburg in an afternoon, and in other games, I often don't get to the end.

 

P.S.: I think maybe you know me as Raz, from other games.  

[lotharr51]

As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to make a game about Gettysburg, then that game has to model the realities of that battle and balance it with game play. I want to feel good as the Confederates when I beat my friend because, given the realities of the battle (terrain and primacy of defense), the confederates literally have an uphill battle. I haven't looked at the Steam forum much either, but I've seen some really good posts here about enhancing this experience by incorporating more realism without sacrificing game-play. I don't want to be distracted by behaviors that would not have occurred such as the Rambo skirmishers and invincible artillery. Maneuver, elevation, field defenses, cover, interior lines and more played a huge role in how this battle unfolded. I want to have to grapple with those questions as I play since I am playing a game about Gettysburg.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

The problem is this game is not SMG, No matter how much we want it to be.  It is a arcade type game for now. It is not a full pledge  card carrying game yet.

 

I understand both sides and I think both sides have valid points.

 

In reality each soldier could carry about 80-100 rounds of ammo (thats a lot some ammo cases were much smaller could carry 50-80) before they would start picking up ammo from the dead. Now I do see how it can be silly when you place a brigade in a position that it fires non stop the entire battle killing well over 1000 and never running out of ammo. Then again this game would get boring really fast.

 

Its also not very realistic when your Artillery charges the enemy like tanks. I like how the Arty finds best suitable ground. But sometimes they get retarded.

 

Or when the enemy AI retreats through your battle line not losing many men when bumbling through a fat brigade. Only to reform behind the line and start attacking my Arty...

 

I have finished well over 10 full games. The battles are very simple. I have to play on hardest setting and I have to play aggressive AI cause I do not want to sit through a camp-fest. This makes battle fairly predictable. The third day being the hardest. The rebels have the hardest job. No matter where you push them too, you can lose if you do not crush the blue bellies on the 3rd day. Yankees get it easier. They can just sit an fall back and keep falling back untill all 5 corps arrive. Then its over.

 

Will forget everything I said when I can do 2v2 Multiplayer.

 

Love this game.

[Tormidal]

The problem is this game is not SMG, No matter how much we want it to be.  It is a arcade type game for now. It is not a full pledge  card carrying game yet.

 

I understand both sides and I think both sides have valid points.

 

In reality each soldier could carry about 80-100 rounds of ammo (thats a lot some ammo cases were much smaller could carry 50-80) before they would start picking up ammo from the dead. Now I do see how it can be silly when you place a brigade in a position that it fires non stop the entire battle killing well over 1000 and never running out of ammo. Then again this game would get boring really fast.

 

Its also not very realistic when your Artillery charges the enemy like tanks. I like how the Arty finds best suitable ground. But sometimes they get retarded.

 

Or when the enemy AI retreats through your battle line not losing many men when bumbling through a fat brigade. Only to reform behind the line and start attacking my Arty...

 

I have finished well over 10 full games. The battles are very simple. I have to play on hardest setting and I have to play aggressive AI cause I do not want to sit through a camp-fest. This makes battle fairly predictable. The third day being the hardest. The rebels have the hardest job. No matter where you push them too, you can lose if you do not crush the blue bellies on the 3rd day. Yankees get it easier. They can just sit an fall back and keep falling back untill all 5 corps arrive. Then its over.

 

Will forget everything I said when I can do 2v2 Multiplayer.

 

Love this game.

 

That's the problem with all AI in games.

AI in general is just too predictable. Every strategy game has this issue, with there is not enough variety in units and tactics. For example, the AI in starcraft will always send a small attack way around five minutes in. The AI in total war will always just sit there if they're defending, in their pretty lines. The AI in Rainbow Six Vegas will always run towards gunfire. Once you understand how the AI thinks(As it rarely changes its thinking), it becomes easier and easier to predict. It is the same in UGG.

 

Don't get me wrong. Its not the fault of the coders. But its hard to code a good, unpreditable AI.

The only game I've played where this isn't the case, is Planetary Annihilation. Maybe its the wide range of options the players and AI can choose from, in terms of units and strategies, but the AI never seems to play the same way.(Supposedly, it analyzes every match it plays with a human(s), and saves that analysis, to come up with better strategies for future games.)