A great ACW indie game or a ACW simulator?

[Lannes]

Gameplay is not only about whether it has appeal versus historical accuracy. A game can have it all. It won't, however, have perfect, total appeal, and if it were solely historically accurate, it would be boring. Before Rome II, Total War games had great gameplay and good historical accuracy. A modder like Darth Vader added some historical accuracy to these, as well as colourful variety.

Too much attention to appeal and you lose gameplay for wargamers; too much attention to historical accuracy (e.g. ACW cavalry being no more than mounted infantry and riding around like American Indians) and you lose variety and fun.

I would like to see some historical accuracy in uniforms. To implement this, you would have to increase the size of the figures from the tiny < 10 mm they are now to > 25 mm. Because, fiddling around with such tiny soldiers with boring uniforms will quickly bore me. (Indeed, I am now already bored and playing less, and going from Ultimate General to that boring game Rome II, and back again.)

 

Oh! And PS: Nick Thomadis, you need someone to correct the English texts in your game; the English is not good enough for Ultimate General as a world-wide, finished product.

[Tormidal]

Gameplay is not only about whether it has appeal versus historical accuracy. A game can have it all. It won't, however, have perfect, total appeal, and if it were solely historically accurate, it would be boring. Before Rome II, Total War games had great gameplay and good historical accuracy. A modder like Darth Vader added some historical accuracy to these, as well as colourful variety.

Too much attention to appeal and you lose gameplay for wargamers; too much attention to historical accuracy (e.g. ACW cavalry being no more than mounted infantry and riding around like American Indians) and you lose variety and fun.

I would like to see some historical accuracy in uniforms. To implement this, you would have to increase the size of the figures from the tiny < 10 mm they are now to > 25 mm. Because, fiddling around with such tiny soldiers with boring uniforms will quickly bore me. (Indeed, I am now already bored and playing less, and going from Ultimate General to that boring game Rome II, and back again.)

 

Oh! And PS: Nick Thomadis, you need someone to correct the English texts in your game; the English is not good enough for Ultimate General as a world-wide, finished product.

 

If you want the text fixed, quote the wrong version with a version that you view as more grammatically correct. They are not native English speakers, as I've come to understand.

 

And the original Rome: Total War was riddled with historical inaccuracies for the sake of "Unit Variety." But, on the upside, it had the incendiary pigs. So, props.

 

Onwards, though, increasing the size of the models might wind up being counter productive, because they need to keep it on scale with the map, as well. And if they get too big, it becomes a lot of moving the mouse around to find other brigades, and everything just gets magnified. Until they start pushing out mod support and sandbox/custom battle modes, this game is/gets old pretty fast.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

In my opinion which really is not that big a deal, but I think that they need to focus on couple other main issues and forget about the graphics the game is already gorgeous. Instead the three issues are:

 

1. Artillery, targeting and movement while you are trying to lay down fire on the enemy and the damn guns want to move around. Instead let us click a target to fire at, while still keeping the Artillery in a Hold position. That should fix the problem

 

2. Routing Units, I understand the want to not surrender entire corps when surrounded because the next battle will be a cake walk, but common give us some more realism. Let us at least kill all the blue bellies if we can't capture them. Also they should not be allowed to rout through a stationary line without taking MAJOR damage. As of right now its extremely discouraging to have dumb Brigades run through my lines without so much as 100 men loss then form up behind me and attack my cannons...

 

3. AI Difficulty, The game is to easy. For both Yanks and Rebs. I find myself holding back my Brigades. Fighting with my hand behind my back because its the only way to get a challenge. I won't even bring up my entire army to fight anymore. The AI needs to focus more on attacking the high ground and bringing up their cannons once they take the ground. Right now they just kind flounder about. If you can beat back their first attack they don't try and maneuver or anything. They just sit there and rest then launch another attack in same spot. Its so predictive.

[Lannes]

If you want the text fixed, quote the wrong version with a version that you view as more grammatically correct. They are not native English speakers, as I've come to understand.

 

And the original Rome: Total War was riddled with historical inaccuracies for the sake of "Unit Variety." But, on the upside, it had the incendiary pigs. So, props.

 

Onwards, though, increasing the size of the models might wind up being counter productive, because they need to keep it on scale with the map, as well. And if they get too big, it becomes a lot of moving the mouse around to find other brigades, and everything just gets magnified. Until they start pushing out mod support and sandbox/custom battle modes, this game is/gets old pretty fast.

 

There are too many mistakes to quote. Are you not an English speaker? You don't see the mistakes? "They don't speak English too well and some of them are dyslexic." What sort of argument is that? Just because they can't speak English well does that mean we should have an inferior product? They could hire an English graduate, don't you think?

That the Rome Total War game was 'riddled with historical inaccuracies' was because of sloppy work, as it didn't have much unit variety.

Onwards from 'Onwards...' I see I am meeting again one of those fellows who thinks he can tell me the developers' minds. You don't know this, Tormidal, so don't guess and put it forward as fact. Size of models and any map problems as a consequence of them are things that can be replied to from the developers not an amateur game tester.

As I said, the game is already boring as is the conversation with you here.

[David Fair]

MacBlain, your observation above that, "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" is interesting.

While a number of players are struggling with the game and complaining the AI is "overpowered" others believe the AI is anemic and not challenging.

The bell curve on player variability could easily be rectified with a "player's guide" that would tighten up the game experience distribution curve.

My observation is that AI does not play by the "same rules" as the player - simply the same mechanics. For example players attack flanks to gain VPs, the AI attacks where there are VPs. This makes the game, as R.E.B. Blunt states above, "predictive".

Reducing the level of determinism in the game could be achieved with AI Phase Variants. For example in Phase 2 the CSA AI could have 3 alternatives:

a. attack toward the rear of Seminary Ridge (as they currently do if the Union holds Oak Ridge/Seminary Ridge).

b. move directly to Culp's Hill then attack the Union in the rear.

c. split Ewell's II Corps to achieve a. & b. above.

Additionally, beefing up the AI to keep the game interesting is very important. Possibly a 4th difficulty level?

My perspective on game design is that history is very interesting - otherwise you wouldn't have all of the books, clubs, reenactors, gamers, etc... focused on the American Civil War. The problem is that game designers haven't reconciled how to design and implement a game that is both historically accurate and interesting.

History wonks make deadly boring games by murdering their audience with historical minutia and sucking the time out of your life (it takes how much of my life to play SoW?).

Game designers are still making fantasy games about history (e.g., historically artillery and cavalry weren't "powerful enough" in the eyes of the designers to make an interesting game. The result is fantasy Videttes, artillery moving at the pace of oxen, artillery batteries that are as effective as infantry divisions, etc...).

The design team that understands and embraces the convergence point of abstracting history to make it fast-paced and interesting but limits the level of fantasy is going to have a smashing success. UGG is a step in the right direction.

They've accomplished a reasonable game scale, ease of learning curve, implemented a reasonable tactical game engine, and done a very credible job with the map'

I'd say excellent job with the map but - they need to make the area of the stone walls "cover" so you can fight the battle in the locations that the troops actually fought. Precisely because the stone walls provided heavy cover just as they did at Fredericksburg, etc...

Where the game falls short includes the inter-relationship of the combat arms (cavalry charging infantry in the American Civil War without catastrophic results), the retreat/surrender mechanics, inter-Phase transitions, AI competitiveness, and player control over the strategic allocation of resources.

This is a fine game but my guess is that the design team might do some things differently if they do a future design.

[TheRomanRuler]

EDIT: Never mind 

[Tormidal]

There are too many mistakes to quote. Are you not an English speaker? You don't see the mistakes? "They don't speak English too well and some of them are dyslexic." What sort of argument is that? Just because they can't speak English well does that mean we should have an inferior product? They could hire an English graduate, don't you think?

That the Rome Total War game was 'riddled with historical inaccuracies' was because of sloppy work, as it didn't have much unit variety.

Onwards from 'Onwards...' I see I am meeting again one of those fellows who thinks he can tell me the developers' minds. You don't know this, Tormidal, so don't guess and put it forward as fact. Size of models and any map problems as a consequence of them are things that can be replied to from the developers not an amateur game tester.

As I said, the game is already boring as is the conversation with you here.

 

If you have such an issue with the mistakes, point them out to the developers, and stop complaining. That's why its EARLY ACCESS. They did it so they can get help with issues like this.

 

And I never claimed to be able to "Read the developers' minds," as you stated. It's just common sense. When you start increasing the size of the visuals, eveything gets out of proportion.

[Daergar]

Since it's a bit derailed already; to whomever decided to cut away several posts, and while they were hardly constructive and mostly antagonistic, some sort of notification of the action would be much appreciated. I thought I'd lost more of my mind when I couldn't locate the conversation.

 

Imho forum cleaning is nice and all, it just leaves a bad taste when it appears spurious and secretive. I thought I've found another cordial forum, which is rare and thus exciting, but now I wonder if that's due to post removals.

 

Anyway, back to re-reading Killer Angels!

[Ink]

Guys, please stay on topic and try to avoid any personal attacks. Thanks

[Maus]

UGG is a tactical battles game. I hope that doesn't change. It's perfect at being what it is, which is a fun, beautiful tactics game with compelling AI in the style of Darthmod + Total War. Trying to morph it into a simulation at this late stage of development is a very bad idea. UGG should be finished (content, multiplayer?), polished off, and "shipped" as-is without apology for being the kind of game it is. After that, Game Labs can consider whether they want more realism and simulation in the next Ultimate General they make, if any.

 

If you purchased UGG hoping for a detailed real-time simulation of the Battle of Gettysburg, then I'm sorry, but you should have done more research into what you were buying. Scourge of War and Histwar are the droids tactical battle simulators you're looking for.

[nemo73]

If you purchased UGG hoping for a detailed real-time simulation of the Battle of Gettysburg, then I'm sorry, but you should have done more research into what you were buying. 

 

[David Fair]

Doing more research so you know what you are talking about is also sound advice.

[Maus]

[a picture]

 

"it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

 

 

 

In all fairness you're right about that.

 

In my defense, there is a lot more research to be done than one line of ad copy. There were already videos of the game when it went on sale that, placed alongside videos of something like Scourge of War, make it very clear the game is not a simulator in the sense that HistWar, DCS, or CMANO are simulators. Likewise Darthmod mentioned at the top is a very well-known series of Total War mods that suggest what kind of "simulation" UGG would be. Anyone unsure or wary (as everyone ought to be for all Early Access games) that it might not be the simulator of their dreams could have waited a week for some Let's Plays to pop up on YouTube.

 

(And it's still not a simulator.)

[Lannes]

I never knew what a Tactical Battle Simulator meant. So, this is it, a TBS, Ultimate General. I can't make much sense of what you guys above are saying, though. I don't mean to be rude at all, it's just that I can't help noticing your English syntax is not perfect, this goes for the game itself and the posts. I notice it because I was an English teacher.

I was looking for something more than this TBS.

[Zin]

I think a way that could help with the artillery issue is having them limber and unlimber, that way when they unlimber, they're stagnant.  You would have to limber up the battery again to make it move.  Maybe have a pop-up screen that acknowledges when a arty unit has to move (WARNING! The unit you selected for bombardment is out of range, limber up and set up a better firing position?  Yes/No).  Or something of that variety.  I think that would put a lot of the arty issues to rest.  Additionally, I think having a color modifier on the terrain over what's available for bombardment and what is not would help the LOS issues with arty.

 

I think the game should go for full customization. Those who want an arcade style SMG battle should be able to get it, and those who want Take Command should be able to have their take too.  Have cake and eat it!  Though of course, not being a developer myself, I have no idea how feasible this is.

 

Additionally, when the idea of this game first came out a year ago, I made a post I think needs reiteration (at least on my part, so I'm not typing the same ideas again.)

 

 

Hello Nick,

 

I am always quite excited for new Civil War games coming out.  If there's any historical research/input you may need, I am beginning my doctoral studies at Mississippi State University in the fall, with history, with an emphasis on Military History.  I will do what I can to help!

 

...

 

One aspect of the Total War series I always appreciated was the ground littered with the dead bodies of soldiers who fell in battle.  Unlike FPS games (like COD or Battlefield) which remove bodies of dead players frequently during the course of a match, you gain a true appreciation of the sacrifice these soldiers make.  As a commander, it is your duty to attempt to win with the fewest casualties possible.  One way to realize this responsibility is to have as many men as possible represent the fallen on the field.  

 

___________________

 

I would also like to see the ability to replay the battle once finished, from a top down view as such:

 

 

For history gamers (as I am sure many will be drawn to this game), this would be a very welcome addition.  I suppose the map could be represented as it is in Supreme Commander, that kind of top-down view the commander has.  It gives the player a chance to analyze mistakes, missed opportunities and the ability to develop AARs should one be so inclined.  One print screen later and now viewers can follow the battle as if it was an actual historical engagement.  

 

Or time stop moments, such as above.  Or "critical moments" in the battle, where major engagements occurred that shaped the course of the battle.  These decisive moments in review I believe would add much more depth to the playing experience, and would be utilized to great effect.

 

[Maus]

Though of course, not being a developer myself, I have no idea how feasible this is.

 

You're asking them to essentially program a second game and squeeze it into one that's almost done, which was never meant to be hyper-realistic. This would send UGG into development hell. That's why earlier in this thread I said Game Lab's best option is to finish this game as is and then consider if they would like to take a more detailed, simulationist approach with their next game.

 

I for one hope they stick with their current design philosophy if UG becomes a series. Sometimes I want to play Command Ops, and sometimes I want to play Panzer Corp.

[Ry1459]

I never knew what a Tactical Battle Simulator meant. So, this is it, a TBS, Ultimate General. I can't make much sense of what you guys above are saying, though. I don't mean to be rude at all, it's just that I can't help noticing your English syntax is not perfect, this goes for the game itself and the posts. I notice it because I was an English teacher.

I was looking for something more than this TBS.

 

Well, if you don't like the game as it it right now, then don't play it. It's simple as that. The community doesn't need people like you who don't appreciate what we have. Also, some of your others posts are somewhat hostile if you don't agree with that person's' view .

[Lannes]

Well, if you don't like the game as it it right now, then don't play it. It's simple as that. The community doesn't need people like you who don't appreciate what we have. Also, some of your others posts are somewhat hostile if you don't agree with that person's' view .

Hostility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I certainly do not intend that. I hope that my lightly complaining helps to change things in the game. That's all.

[Tormidal]

Hostility seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I certainly do not intend that. I hope that my lightly complaining helps to change things in the game. That's all.

 

Complaining won't do much.

Point out mistakes, and then offer a better alternative. If you notice issues with their English, re-write it and let them know you have come up with a better version.

That's the point of early access, is to help them make the game feasible for a real, version 1.0 release.

[David Fair]

The design team faces many challenges.

Your complaints are not new - but getting to all of them is a challenge.

Many of the things you are complaining about have been rewritten. Getting them through the review process, approved, and integrated takes time.

Focus on the stuff that is really important to you and you have a better chance of being heard.

[Lannes]

The design team faces many challenges.

Your complaints are not new - but getting to all of them is a challenge.

Many of the things you are complaining about have been rewritten. Getting them through the review process, approved, and integrated takes time.

Focus on the stuff that is really important to you and you have a better chance of being heard.

Nice to know that 'many of the things (I have) complained about have been rewritten.' I guess, I have covered all the 'important stuff' I would like to see in the game in my posts. Thanks.