Thomasew Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Hi, Just wondering if there was an easy way, .. to find ones Corps General(s) on the Battlefield. When things starting getting hectic, .. which they often do, .. I really have to strain my eyes to find the Corps General(s). How about, .. if you select a Division, .. and click/double-click on the Commanding General's icon in the top left, .. that the camera will center on the Corps General. .. or, clicking on a Division, .. would also highlight the Corps General. .. or, .. something like that. Just a thought. Cheers Tom 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Thomadis Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Actually this is something we would like to improve and we need your opinions about the best way. Some ideas are the following: 1) Improve Generals sprites (pending) to be more special looking 2) Make Fonts of Generals a different color to be more distinquishable 3) Have a special "General" button to toggle between your generals Any other proposal can help. Sticking the thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasew Posted June 21, 2014 Author Share Posted June 21, 2014 Hi Nick, I'm not sure that options 1 and/or 2 would help during the thick of battle. Might still be difficult to find them. So, that would leave Option 3, .. which makes the most sense. In Fact, .. I'm playing a battle at the moment, .. and I'm buggered if I can find my Confederate 2nd Corps Commander anywhere .. .. unless he went for tea or something. So, option 3 would definitely be viable, .. however, that's not to say, that you couldn't give us all 3 options .. A Corps Commander should be more easily distinguishable on the Battlefield. Thanks for considering this. Cheers Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lotharr51 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I think any of those three would be great, but I would also like a link to the general when a sub-unit is selected in that units top left info panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Fair Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I'd like to be able to "double click" any unit to highlight the chain of command. If you are going to have Division Commanders and Corps Commanders they would both be highlighted. This way you don't need to move your cursor to "find" generals. Double click find the general then you can move the unit to the general or click on the highlighted general to move the general to the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majormauser Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Maybe the icon could be the Generals caricature. I also like the idea of a General key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul_KT Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 How about having general portraits at the top of the screen, clicking on the portrait would zoom to and select the general. Also are there any plans to model having units under a general have to stay close to him? Units very close to a general currently are buffed, but outside of that you can have units from different divisions and corps spread all over the map. It would be interesting if there was a mechanic to encourage keeping corps close together, or am I over complicating things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The hell to my Corps Commander. I'm just tired of seeing the 3rd Corps commander fighting with more brigade Commanders from the 2nd Corps than with the 3rd. Be nice to have Divisional Commanders. Or maybe General Lee? I have yet to see him arrive in any of my battles. Is he even in the game? I do have a question I would like answered though. For the Smaller battles where only one Corps Commander arrives to fight the battle.Does that Corps Commander who would arrive, give bonus to brigades whom are not part of his Corps, if he is only Commander present? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekev506 Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Ideas 2 and 3 seem the best fit to the problem, 3 in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conky Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Option 3 seems interesting to me. If something like the "idle villager" that was added to Age of Empires could be incorporated where you toggle your way through your generals, it may make finding them simply and quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elicas Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Honestly, I like all 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Fair Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 R.E.B. Blunt, 2/3 of the troops in Pickett's Charge belonged to A.P. Hills 3rd Corps. Why was Longstreet in command of the charge? It is an interesting question if Corps Commanders should give a bonus to troops that are not assigned to their Corps. This situation was not all that unusual during the war and happened at Gettysburg not infrequently. On the Union side Wadsworth (I Corp) was detached to defend Culp's Hill, Ruger (XII Corps) was detached to defend Wolf Hill and units became mixed in the confusion of battle. Good arguments can be made on either side of the argument. My suggestion would be that Corps leaders do give a bonus to all troops in their command range; but for troops not under their direct command the effect should be reduced. I think (but am not certain) that the idea of UGG is that the player is General Lee or General Meade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 R.E.B. Blunt, 2/3 of the troops in Pickett's Charge belonged to A.P. Hills 3rd Corps. Why was Longstreet in command of the charge? In the real battle Longstreet was offered the Command for the attack, but refused it cause he knew from the start it would not work. He delegated it down to General John Bell Hood. But he was wounded in the Battle for Round Top and then was delegated down to Hoods most capable Divisional Commander Pickett. Hence why it is called Pickett's Charge. After the death of General Stonewall Jackson. Lee suffered what many called a Minor Stroke. From which he never recovered and is prob why Lee fought the battle of Gettysburg in the first place. He was not in his right state of mind. Longstreet wanted to pull out of the battle and continue to maneuver around till they found more suitable ground to fight a defensive battle. Instead Lee had them on the Offensive. On Darths Question I like 1 and 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angiel Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The option 3 seems the best for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HugoBardo Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I think option 1 is the best, with maybe also the function 3 added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Be more realistic if your Corps Commander gets wounded or dies. Also would make Divisional Commanders more relevant and useful. That way you can keep the Corps Commander back by the guns and your Divisional up by the men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDuke Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 ....select the regiment could "auto-highlight" the specific corp/division commander (similar as in Grary Grigsby 's "War in the East") + option 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Husserl Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Does that Corps Commander who would arrive, give bonus to brigades whom are not part of his Corps, if he is only Commander present? Good arguments can be made on either side of the argument. My suggestion would be that Corps leaders do give a bonus to all troops in their command range; but for troops not under their direct command the effect should be reduced. The Generals can inspire all units. However, the units that belong to their Corps are inspired faster and more efficiently. I think (but am not certain) that the idea of UGG is that the player is General Lee or General Meade? Yes, this is the idea. Please have in mind the Generals presentation as special units is not final. The starting plans included Divisions commanders as well. However, adding many such units with special abilities might affect unpredictably the gameplay, so we are in a slow course here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawgmoth Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Migth be nice to have a attach command for lead units. So that thay move with the unit that they are attached to. Prehaps even increaseing moral for that unit a bit because ther brave leader is with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Please have in mind the Generals presentation as special units is not final. The starting plans included Divisions commanders as well. However, adding many such units with special abilities might affect unpredictably the gameplay, so we are in a slow course here. There could be ways around this. Like allowing generals to be wounded, or killed. Making Divisional Commanders have smaller circle of influence. But you all are extremely capable in developing the right course of action without me telling you this. I am sure you have all discussed this. I know I may be beating a dead horse. But having the Human be Lee or Meade many things would have to change. Like for one. Lee did not know what the hell was happening the first day. He was giving orders and Generals would not follow them. The mere presence of General Lee would make his men climb to great heights. Meade on the other hand did not arrive till the night of the first day when the battles were already over. So in theory if you guys say that the Human is Lee or Meade. Then this should happen When Lee gives orders they should be delayed and carried out half-ass. For Meade the Human should not be allowed to control the game till the second day. This of course would make for a shitty gameplay. Which is why I ask that you would please reconsider putting General Lee and General Meade into the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccercw Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 There could be ways around this. Like allowing generals to be wounded, or killed. Making Divisional Commanders have smaller circle of influence. But you all are extremely capable in developing the right course of action without me telling you this. I am sure you have all discussed this. I know I may be beating a dead horse. But having the Human be Lee or Meade many things would have to change. Like for one. Lee did not know what the hell was happening the first day. He was giving orders and Generals would not follow them. The mere presence of General Lee would make his men climb to great heights. Meade on the other hand did not arrive till the night of the first day when the battles were already over. So in theory if you guys say that the Human is Lee or Meade. Then this should happen When Lee gives orders they should be delayed and carried out half-ass. For Meade the Human should not be allowed to control the game till the second day. This of course would make for a shitty gameplay. Which is why I ask that you would please reconsider putting General Lee and General Meade into the game... I agree it would make for crappy game play. It's a game, not something where you pick a "person" to be and have to act like that person. Games like Scourge of War (hits and courier format) or even Talonsoft's Battleground series will certainly let you do that. I don't think that's the intention here. Lee, contrary to what you say, was very well in control of his army that day. He had 2 corps converging from two different directions on the town. Granted the actions in the morning did not go as expected and Heth ended up with a bit more than he could handle, but that was only until Pender arrived and Lee inevitably smashed what was in front of him with a two pronged attack. Having orders carried out "half ass" is a determent to the Confederate commanders who eventually made the very best of a confusing situation and ultimately carried the day. As far as the Meade thing goes, someone is always in control of "the field" so not having control of the game makes no sense. Just because the army commander isn't there doesn't mean someone isn't in charge overall so the whole being one person thing would never work and be fun. Reynolds commanded the field on his arrival and Howard after him. Later that day Hancock showed up and took control of the army despite not having his corps present. It's why I like that corps commanders can still inspire other corps. They're still generals in the army. The corps/div commanders being killed thing isn't a terrible idea overall if you can make it work and be fluid. One of my favorite features of the Battleground series is that commanders can be killed and then people get promoted up the chain and a random Colonel appears with some crappy attributes that you have to deal with. Added a whole new element into the game aside from the fighting units Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.E.B.Blunt Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Lee, contrary to what you say, was very well in control of his army that day. He had 2 corps converging from two different directions on the town. Granted the actions in the morning did not go as expected and Heth ended up with a bit more than he could handle, but that was only until Pender arrived and Lee inevitably smashed what was in front of him with a two pronged attack. Having orders carried out "half ass" is a determent to the Confederate commanders who eventually made the very best of a confusing situation and ultimately carried the day. What about the attack on Culps hill. Lee gave the order. It WAS carried out half-ass and did not succeed. It was not just Heth that bumbled orders but Ewell also used discretionary tactics and did not launch a full attack as he was ordered... So I stand by my previous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekev506 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Something general-related that struck me earlier today: should the aura of influence a general has be bigger on higher ground (and maybe smaller in woods?) In my mind I imagine the general dispatching couriers and micro-managing the situation rather than 'inspiring' units when he's near them, and being on high ground would make such a job much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminole Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Of the options listed I like #3 the best. Currently I'm basically using the grouping function to achieve the same thing so I don't lose the generals under unit stacks. I have a question concerning corps generals and OOB in general. It would be nice to know which units I am supposed to have before the battle. I had a bug (reported) of units that were invisible, but with no OOB I had no idea who was actually missing. In the same vein, on day two I had 3 Union corps on the map, but only two corps generals could be found. Should II Corps general be on the map if all of his brigades are? He was in the subsequent and final battle. An OOB listing (either before the game or even nicer in the game) would be nice. Great game, having lots of fun, and looking forward to future iterations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJingles Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Actually this is something we would like to improve and we need your opinions about the best way. Some ideas are the following: 1) Improve Generals sprites (pending) to be more special looking This would be a good addition. 2) Make Fonts of Generals a different color to be more distinquishable This would be a good additon. 3) Have a special "General" button to toggle between your generals ' This is needed IMO. Any other proposal can help. Sticking the thread. The blue writing is my suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now