A great ACW indie game or a ACW simulator?

[nemo73]

Hello there gents, it really IS great start  

UGG is aesthetically pleasing and unique, AI is quite smart and after the first great patch the game is starting to feel RTS.

But, is it a ACW Tactical Battle Simulator? 

 

- I can order my troops where to go, but I can't order them how to form; single or double line, skirmish e.t.c.

- There is no "surrendering condition" 

- There is no retreat option (although fall back feels like a retreat)

- Routed units recover too fast

 

These are my first thoughts. The game is already very unique and quite enjoyable, but there is a lot of work yet to be done. However, I am pretty optimistic about UGG future. 

 

My compliments to you Nick (συγχαρητήρια για την έξοχη προσπάθεια).

[Riekopo]

Ya it's a fairly simple game in its current state. The player doesn't have much control over the details like say Sid Meier's Gettysburg or Sid Meier's Antietam or Scourge of War.

[JohnnyJingles]

The recent patch has slowed things down a lot... its killed it for me personally but i can respect people want to have it that slow. Personally i think this game is going to shape up to please certain fans unless they intend to add something to speed up the battles or slow them down for instance. I think the game will end up being very realistic and appeal to people who can sit and play at a snails pace and somewhat be able to like the slow gameplay but for the rest its unplayble atleast for myself.

 

I am also worried for the future of the game.

 

Cheers all.

[N.C.rebel]

I think it's perfect pace fast just makes it arcadey

[sharky0922]

I think it's perfect pace fast just makes it arcadey

Lol I said it exact  same thing on youtube.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Right now the game is a Indie game.

 

For it to be a Historical ACW simulator it would have to change a lot of things that make this game unique. I have mixed feelings. At first when I played this game I wanted it to be more and more like Sid Meiers Getttysburg. I wanted more Generals in the game. I wanted Brigades to surrender. I wanted to be able to detach regiments from Brigades. But the more I play it I don't really care about that anymore. I love the nostalgic feeling it has. It is not perfect but nothing is.

 

If I could get one thing in this game to make me shut the hell up. It would be a awesome detailed After Battle Report. Describing the kill/death ratio of every Brigade from the first day to the last. Be awesome if I could after the Battle of Gettysburg if I could see how much ass I kicked or how much I got mine kicked.

 

When I spend hours on a game I want some kind of reward. The way it is now it just plain sucks You win, You lose. I am telling you if you guys added some kind of script that did this I would never ask for anything else again!

[CmdrMctoast]

Right now the game is a Indie game.

 

For it to be a Historical ACW simulator it would have to change a lot of things that make this game unique. I have mixed feelings. At first when I played this game I wanted it to be more and more like Sid Meiers Getttysburg. I wanted more Generals in the game. I wanted Brigades to surrender. I wanted to be able to detach regiments from Brigades. But the more I play it I don't really care about that anymore. I love the nostalgic feeling it has. It is not perfect but nothing is.

 

If I could get one thing in this game to make me shut the hell up. It would be a awesome detailed After Battle Report. Describing the kill/death ratio of every Brigade from the first day to the last. Be awesome if I could after the Battle of Gettysburg if I could see how much ass I kicked or how much I got mine kicked.

 

When I spend hours on a game I want some kind of reward. The way it is now it just plain sucks You win, You lose. I am telling you if you guys added some kind of script that did this I would never ask for anything else again!

But that would not help improve the game.

I like the whole battle report idea and alot of us have mentioned this as well in testing, but lets get the bugs out first..

 

[CmdrMctoast]

The recent patch has slowed things down a lot... its killed it for me personally but i can respect people want to have it that slow. Personally i think this game is going to shape up to please certain fans unless they intend to add something to speed up the battles or slow them down for instance. I think the game will end up being very realistic and appeal to people who can sit and play at a snails pace and somewhat be able to like the slow gameplay but for the rest its unplayble atleast for myself.

 

I am also worried for the future of the game.

 

Cheers all.

so far they have listened to us all, it takes time and incremental moves and sometimes you have to make a move to the other extreme to find the correct balance someplace inbetween, I am not worried at all about the games future as it has one for sure.

I am for a speed in between these last two patches.

[soccercw]

Let's not forget that SMG was in no way a "simulator" either.  In SMG you could retreat your artillery to get them anywhere on the map in lightning speed.  You'd put your regiments in column and double quick through the enemy to surround a regiment to "flag" them.  If you know each scenario after a while you would just see both sides double quicking infantry and retreat advancing artillery to the VP's at the very beginning and just sitting there making the enemy move them off it. 

 

It had it's "arcade" feel too in some aspects.  I know many people want to be able to change to column, line, etc, but part of me thinks this is in there to prevent gamey things like double quicking in column to unrealistically go in circles around people like you could in SMG

[Tormidal]

Regardless of how the game ends up, as a simulator or an ACW game, its still going to be indie.(Just saying.)

 

 

Although,

 

If I could get one thing in this game to make me shut the hell up. It would be a awesome detailed After Battle Report. Describing the kill/death ratio of every Brigade from the first day to the last. Be awesome if I could after the Battle of Gettysburg if I could see how much ass I kicked or how much I got mine kicked.

 

I've suggested this before, and I think it would be a great addition to help the players see specifics.

 

 

I personally enjoyed the quick arcade-y feel from before the speed got slowed down. It made it easy to pick up the game, play a quick battle, and get on with whatever I had to take care of. We really need a speed setting so that the people who want to play fast can, and the people that want to play slow can play slowly.

 

While I don't mind adding things like surrendering and columns and all that(it does add some more immersion), it wont help keep the people interested in an ACW game interested in it, because currently, its just too slow.

[TheRomanRuler]

The recent patch has slowed things down a lot... its killed it for me personally but i can respect people want to have it that slow. Personally i think this game is going to shape up to please certain fans unless they intend to add something to speed up the battles or slow them down for instance. I think the game will end up being very realistic and appeal to people who can sit and play at a snails pace and somewhat be able to like the slow gameplay but for the rest its unplayble atleast for myself.

 

I am also worried for the future of the game.

 

Cheers all.

Sorry to hear that it has killed it for you, but try fighting a battle with 10 000 soldiers in faster, and then slower AKA current speed. You notice that in faster version it is impossible to control all units, at all sometimes, so one with fastest reflexes wins. When it is slower, everyone have time to think, but they still might not get soldiers in position fast enough, so it is more about skill. 

Altough at times it is currently too slow, sometimes i have nothing to do becouse it is stalemate, so we have to let artillery and skirmishers and small forces do their job, little managing needed (at least atm you can`t really micro skirmishers effectively i think) so it is just waiting. But this is why it is in beta, and in my opinion it is better than before, so it is not demo-beta like unfortunately is common. 

[Tormidal]

Sorry to hear that it has killed it for you, but try fighting a battle with 10 000 soldiers in faster, and then slower AKA current speed. You notice that in faster version it is impossible to control all units, at all sometimes, so one with fastest reflexes wins. When it is slower, everyone have time to think, but they still might not get soldiers in position fast enough, so it is more about skill.

Altough at times it is currently too slow, sometimes i have nothing to do becouse it is stalemate, so we have to let artillery and skirmishers and small forces do their job, little managing needed (at least atm you can`t really micro skirmishers effectively i think) so it is just waiting. But this is why it is in beta, and in my opinion it is better than before, so it is not demo-beta like unfortunately is common.

You do have a point, but those people with the quicker reflexes, such as myself, will be bored and not enjoy it as much.

We need a variable speed slider for single player.

[David Fair]

Variable speed is an important feature. It would be great if this could be set at the start of each Phase. Phases with minimal troops can run at higher speeds than Phases with tens-of-thousands of troops.

[Tormidal]

Variable speed is an important feature. It would be great if this could be set at the start of each Phase. Phases with minimal troops can run at higher speeds than Phases with tens-of-thousands of troops.

I think it can be done even better than that; have it during the battle and allow the user to change it while they're playing. Like Total War, or Sins of a Solar Empire.

[TheRomanRuler]

You do have a point, but those people with the quicker reflexes, such as myself, will be bored and not enjoy it as much.

We need a variable speed slider for single player.

Just had idea how both can be happy: Add limited ammo, so you have more things to do, and while there may be moments without action, you always have something to do when bringing more ammunition to the front. Even if you have enough, you could place them along the line like often happened, so you don`t have to carry any more than you already do but in defensive positions you have more to shoot with and won`t run out. 

[Tormidal]

Just had idea how both can be happy: Add limited ammo, so you have more things to do, and while there may be moments without action, you always have something to do when bringing more ammunition to the front. Even if you have enough, you could place them along the line like often happened, so you don`t have to carry any more than you already do but in defensive positions you have more to shoot with and won`t run out. 

 

I hate the idea of limited ammo. I'll be honest. I personally won't have an issue with it, but it going to discourage a lot of new players when they first they play, because there's so much that players have to pay attention to as it is. Adding limited ammo is just going to make this game more and more about micro-management.

[TheRomanRuler]

I hate the idea of limited ammo. I'll be honest. I personally won't have an issue with it, but it going to discourage a lot of new players when they first they play, because there's so much that players have to pay attention to as it is. Adding limited ammo is just going to make this game more and more about micro-management.

I agree with you on that,  just said it as possible solution. 

[R.E.B.Blunt]

The issue is if Darth wants this game to be as Historically correct as possible or if he wants to make it a Indie game.

 

The Developers have not been very clear on this issue.

 

If Historically accurate than each soldier should only be allowed to carry 100 rounds per battle. 100 rounds is a lot to fire. Each ammo box the soldier wears can usually only carry 80 rounds. They would carry another 20 in their Haversack or pick up from dead or wounded. 100 is a fair number I think.

 

Cavalry could carry more. Maybe 200 rounds cause they can have their horse carry it on the saddle bag.

 

If it is a Indie game, then you really don't need ammo limits.

[Tormidal]

The issue is if Darth wants this game to be as Historically correct as possible or if he wants to make it a Indie game.

 

The Developers have not been very clear on this issue.

 

If Historically accurate than each soldier should only be allowed to carry 100 rounds per battle. 100 rounds is a lot to fire. Each ammo box the soldier wears can usually only carry 80 rounds. They would carry another 20 in their Haversack or pick up from dead or wounded. 100 is a fair number I think.

 

Cavalry could carry more. Maybe 200 rounds cause they can have their horse carry it on the saddle bag.

 

If it is a Indie game, then you really don't need ammo limits.

 

I think you're confusing the terms "indie" and "arcade."

Indie simply means the person or team making the game did so without a publisher/publisher's financial support.

 

 

Moreover, there argument is really, are they making a true simulator, or are they making a strategy game.

A game needs to be about having fun. If a player is distracted by way too many things, ammo, condition, morale, placement, cover, artillery, minimap, they're going to be overwhelmed, and they won't be enjoying it.

 

Game-Labs needs to decide, are they going to appease the gamers, or are they going to appease the historians? Maybe they can find a middle, but in the middle, neither group is going to be  particularly happy, but at least they wont be unhappy.

[TheRomanRuler]

I think you're confusing the terms "indie" and "arcade."

Indie simply means the person or team making the game did so without a publisher/publisher's financial support.

 

 

Moreover, there argument is really, are they making a true simulator, or are they making a strategy game.

A game needs to be about having fun. If a player is distracted by way too many things, ammo, condition, morale, placement, cover, artillery, minimap, they're going to be overwhelmed, and they won't be enjoying it.

 

Game-Labs needs to decide, are they going to appease the gamers, or are they going to appease the historians? Maybe they can find a middle, but in the middle, neither group is going to be  particularly happy, but at least they wont be unhappy.

Nah, game can be both historically accurate and appeasing for masses, just look at Rome 2 TW! 

Seriouselly tough, good balance can be found and i think this is very good start. 

[Tormidal]

Nah, game can be both historically accurate and appeasing for masses, just look at Rome 2 TW! 

Seriouselly tough, good balance can be found and i think this is very good start. 

 

That's a very poor example, because Rome 2 has so many issues with it, that its almost not enjoyable.

[TheRomanRuler]

That's a very poor example, because Rome 2 has so many issues with it, that its almost not enjoyable.

 Either that went over my head or you did not get that i was just being ironic, Rome 2 is horrible compared to Rome 1, and only wins in smoothness thanks to 2013 technology. 

So just in case:   

[MacBlain]

I think Mr. Vader is very intent on having the AI play by the same rules as the player. The more convoluted the game mechanics are, the weaker the AI will be.

[Tormidal]

 Either that went over my head or you did not get that i was just being ironic, Rome 2 is horrible compared to Rome 1, and only wins in smoothness thanks to 2013 technology. 

So just in case:   

 

I guess your irony went over my head. xD

[TheRomanRuler]

I guess your irony went over my head. xD