What would you like added to UGG

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Patience, lets wait till the developers release the game fully.

 

See what they add and what they take away. I am hoping they just open up the script to us and allow us to create these ideas on our own. They add the meat, we can add the potatoes later.

[TheCenturion]

Hi

 

AI needs some help, in my opinion.

 

I bought the game from Steam and on my very 1st try i steamrolled the AI and i got like all of the points exept 500 points (end result). I played as Confederate vs Union. (used random general option).

 

I havent tested much, but as far as i see it, AI needs help in the type of AI the player selects.

 

Defencive AI = 5% more HP 5% more morale when staying and defending. (and not so keen on running back).

Offence AI = 5% more HP 5% more morale when attacking or standing off vs player units (and again not so keen running away).

Sneaky AI = 10% faster movement , + should send 1-2 infantry units (low inf amount ones) to flank with skirmishers and a general if possible.

 

I will be doing some videos about the upcoming testing i do for this game and i will post em here in the forums, hopefully generating some talk about different aspects of the game and perhaps make it a bit better if possible.

 

Game felt very nice and all, just needs some interesting aspects more to make the game have good replayability.

 

Sorry, but I'm 100% against this idea. While I agree that the AI can be fairly easy to beat, it's still quite competent. However, I really don't want to see bonuses being applied to each difficulty level. To be frank, that's what I no longer play much of the Total War series, because said series relies on AI bonuses.

[Captain Orso]

I've only played a few scenarios already, and only as the Union. One thing I noted pretty quickly is that once I know approximately from where the enemy will be attacking, at the start of the scenario I can already plot the moves of all of the units I already have on the map. This includes some pretty long movement lines.

 

The bad thing is, that although I play on 1920-1200 and unzoom the map to the max, while Drag-n-Dropping™ a unit from the south end of the map to the upper-middle, the map doesn't scroll along very nicely. Many times my dragging pointer gets to the upper map and suddenly drops the unit an leaves the movement arrow going to what ever random location was under the arrow.

 

A few things would help with this are --in the order of importance:

1. Being able to click a movement line/arrow to activate the unit to continue modifying that movement line/arrow, instead of having to go aaaaaaaall the way back to the unit and start from zero. You should also be able to click the unit itself to have the movement plot highlighted and follow it to it's end and then continue the plot.

2. When clicking an arrow/movement plot line bring the unit up in the unit display in the upper-left corner so you can see that you have the correct unit.

3. While plotting a move, IE dragging  a unit, turn off the LOS shading immediately upon starting the plot; especially if you are making a long plot, you are doing it in the dark very quickly.

4. Being able to delete the plotted move from its furthest extent backwards. I know you can do this currently if you have not yet ended your plot by exactly retracing your movement plot. This works and is not as important as #1, but it could be improved on.

[Yawgmoth]

What i would like to see is to be able to resuffle man power between regiments.
More idealy (but i understand that does not fit in this games design direction) i would like to just have a pool of man power and condition point which before battle you can form in to a army you want. There by directly influencing when you will be receiving what kind of reinforcements.

 

Start moral could than be based on the man power and condition allocated to the unit in combination with its deployment scheme.

[Haresus]

Hi

 

AI needs some help, in my opinion.

 

I bought the game from Steam and on my very 1st try i steamrolled the AI and i got like all of the points exept 500 points (end result). I played as Confederate vs Union. (used random general option).

 

I havent tested much, but as far as i see it, AI needs help in the type of AI the player selects.

 

Defencive AI = 5% more HP 5% more morale when staying and defending. (and not so keen on running back).

Offence AI = 5% more HP 5% more morale when attacking or standing off vs player units (and again not so keen running away).

Sneaky AI = 10% faster movement , + should send 1-2 infantry units (low inf amount ones) to flank with skirmishers and a general if possible.

 

I will be doing some videos about the upcoming testing i do for this game and i will post em here in the forums, hopefully generating some talk about different aspects of the game and perhaps make it a bit better if possible.

 

Game felt very nice and all, just needs some interesting aspects more to make the game have good replayability.

This would be a very bad idea. The AI should be able to resist a human because it is intelligent enough to do that and not because it cheats. Also, I am very glad that the multiplayer is being added to this game and I hope that we will soon be able to play the entire Gettysburg battle, with casualties and choices being saved just like in singleplayer.

[MikeC]

I would not add 90% of the stuff in this poll.  Currently playing the .86 build on steam. 

 

I have said it in the ammo poll thread but I'll say it again.  Your game is currently really good and it is really good at testing players at what matters most in a game of this level:  skill at maneuvering brigade level units to form a coherent plan/strategy while under time pressure.  Most of the stuff on your list is just feature creep that will ruin the game.

 

Things on this poll that would legitimately ruin your product:

 

- limited ammo

- mount dismount cav

- Non-stop 3 day

- Divisional Generals w/ Lee /Meade

- Detach regiments (god no)

- Wounded/Killed Generals

- Limber Artillery

- Dress Line

- brigade formations

 

Why would you add any of this?  It exceeds the scope of the game you have made.  Right now its great.  You select your army strategy and the map you play on and your relevant units of each army duke it out.  Things like single line, double line, skirmish, those are things determined by your brigade commanders, your subordinates.  There is no need to bog the game down with micro management that real commanders that you are simulating would ever worry excessively about or even be able to affect once battle was joined.  Do you think Pickett had the ability to tell Armistead to detach a regiment here or there and have Kemper switch to single line halfway through his charge?  No!  So why would you have it in this game?

 

Legitimate items that would make sense in a game of your scale and also not bog down the pace of the game.

 

-building of fortifications etc.

 

Civil war units did this on their own.  Anytime soldiers had a reasonable amount of time without fear imminent attack, they used whatever was at hand to quickly build breast works.  You already have a cover meter in place.  Have units that have been stationary for x amount of time slowly build up cover to a certain level which would have to be determined by testing.  It adds a very real strategy element that Corps commanders would have to deal with.  Letting enemy units sit too long on objectives or important terrain objectives could be hazardous or require a different approach.  See the failure of Ewell to capture Culps hill before the routed union troops rallied and fortified it.

 

-ability for artillery to target infantry or artillery

-brigades targeting more than 1 unit in its arc

 

If both of these could be done intelligibly and the player retained the ability to override that easily without the AI rewriting the player command, I would put this in.  It is definitely not close to a make or break issue with this game.

 

-historic battle

 

I would rather have an unhistorical campaign with dynamic unit entry onto the battlefield.  Remember that both Gettysburg was a meeting engagement.  Neither side had a clear idea where each other was or what they were facing until the final day.  It would be nice if each time we played the game, we wouldn't know exactly what is going on with the other side.  Adding something like this would bring a welcome dynamic although it would probably tax the AI even further in terms of what it should be doing.  Also you would need to find a way to work out VPs accordingly.

[Elvin]

I agree with this view, the game just doesn't need all that much more added to it. I would be in favour of a more dynamic battle. I would also like to see a lot more of "what if" scenarios, mostly for the starting encounter and then be able to play on from there. Example: give the Confederates a unit of their cavalry to start with, and see what happens.

[Ray_p]

I've only played the game for a small number of days,   I love it so far however:

 

Too much scrolling back and forth around the battlefield on laptop monitor

I would like the option to let the battle run in extra time.  Ending due to time when your on a strategy which you would like to see play out

Unit retreat reform way to far back

I'd rather grab the end of the unit line and rotate it as opposed to the ctrl Tab

Sometimes the group function works and sometimes it doesn't

Artillery moves up automatically to keep the enemy in range

For whatever reason my battles tend to buffer in the middle of the battle,  very annoying

I don't like the Vindettes and skermishers,  there is just too much going on in the battle

The text for the objectives and mileposts should stand out better than it does,  maybe a different color?

[Gen. Szatkownik]

Please, please, please other Civil War Battles or full civil war campaign.

 

For more realistic game I think you sholud also add:

 

- Option for Artillery to target Infantry or Artillery

- Surrendering Units

- Dismount/Mount Cavalry

- Divisional Generals appear in battle

- General Lee and General Meade to appear in battle

- Option to Dig In, Build Barracades

- Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column

- Add After-Battle Report of Kill/Death ratio of each Brigade

- Brigades target more than just one enemy within their firing arc

-  Dress Line left or Right

[Squire Martin]

I agree with MikeC (above) and others who had said that the game is basically right as it is.  Many of us are Civil War buffs and naturally would like to see all kinds of details and to fine-tune the historical accuracy -- but that is not the kind of game this is.  This is the kind of game that people can play and enjoy without having to read a lot of books -- and thankfully it is fun for amateur historians too.

 

For me personally, the overriding issue is to have a "slow" setting of some sort.  I play for relaxing, not for excitement, and for me the pleasure is in thinking about the game and watching its various aspects as the battle unfolds.  If I am too busy moving things, then I can't also sit back and enjoy it.

 

A related improvement would be some indicator that highlights or calls attention to units that are down to, say, 20 percent morale or efficiency.  That needs to be monitored, and yet it is very time-consuming (and not fun) to have to run through the engaged units, clicking on each. 

 

Reading all these comments just shows the difficult environment game-makers work in -- each of us has his own priorities and ways of playing a game like this, and it is impossible to please all of us at the same time.  The guys here are awfully good at listening, responding, and making decisions that satisfy most of us most of the time.  Good show, guys! 

[Robbyhouse]

If I had to pick just one from the long list (all of which I would like to eventually see incorporated into this game) it would be surrendering units.  That's a big one in my book or somehow a unit's complete annihilation and inability to pose a threat for the rest of the day should be addressed.  It's become normal for me to have two or so infantry brigades assigned the task of continuous attack on an enemy unit that somehow has been left behind or managed to wander itself too far from its buddies.  I can't just leave it there allowing it the possibility of waltzing itself from one hard won victory point to another.  In the real world they would have surrendered and the issue would be settled.

 

A close 2nd would be the ability for infantry to dig in.  For that matter artillery too.  Third would be preventing cavalry, videttes, skirmish troops from capturing victory points.

 

RECAP:

 

1.)  Surrendered Units

2.)  Digging In

3.)  Videttes/Cavalry cannot capture Victory Points

[Ray_p]

Can the zoom out go a bit farther and let you see the entire battlefield?  Why so much delay between the alert and the units actually arriving?  Please give the alerts much closer to when the actual unit arrives.

[fierman]

An after-battle report with a replay mode like the one in SMG, that would be pretty sweet

[Ray_p]

Artillery positioned by horse and cassion.   The artillery moves way to slow compared to how it was positioned in battle initially.

[elessarelfstone]

If you could add a radar or overview map it would be easier for some to track the events on the battlefield, beside the event notification (disappears after a while or immediately after clicking it)

[Potato]

I would like the option to play the whole map. You could add a clock to speed up the lulls in the fighting. The campaign style works and is very interesting but sometimes it interferes with fun battle. For example, I attack the Union right, take Culps Hill, the battles stops and the next scenerio sees me on Cemetary Hill and the Union on Culps Hill. Hmm. All that hard work.

[GShock]

Unsurprisingly, this poll has touched many many things I suggested on the TWC forums. 

 

We need to build numbers, revenue, solid user base and then... anything is possible.

[Kelleymoe]

What about a hypothetical scenario where you can add Jeb Stuart and the Calvary to the entire Gettysburg battle?  I've always wondered if the outcome would've been different if the Confederates had the use of Calvary throughout the battle.

 

Mike

[CSA Watkins]

What about a hypothetical scenario where you can add Jeb Stuart and the Calvary to the entire Gettysburg battle?  I've always wondered if the outcome would've been different if the Confederates had the use of Calvary throughout the battle.

 

Mike

 

The outcome to that Hypothetical scenario.... would be a complete slaughter of horses n Men. Think about it, horses running into massive rifle n cannon fire.

Men in line of battle, n the Batteries would be loaded with Canisters, aiming for the horses to kill them.

Men would be tumbling to the ground getting crushed under their mounts, Poor animals.

The introduction of the Rifled Muskets put an end to that...

 

If that happened after the battle it would be Horse Steaks all around for both sides.

Perhaps read up on the Cavalry Charges in the East Field, South Cavalry Field, just SW of the round tops, n the slaughter there. A total snafu....

[Kelleymoe]

No doubt a cavalry charge against massed infantry and cannons would be disastrous as you noted.  Don't want to repeat Pickett's charge.  I was thinking along the lines of mobility and the ability to scout around you.  Hopefully the results would better than Jeb's encounter with Custer on the last day.

 

Mike

[CSA Watkins]

Well that's a bit different. Even If Jeb rolled in on Wednesday the 1st., the Federals would of known where he was at all times n put in a counter to meet any threat he posed.., 

 

As an example......When Longstreet wanted to move around the right behind Big Round Top on the second Day, 2 things impeded that, besides Lee's refusal.

He had no cavalry to screen his movement. Even if he did have the Cavalry, on Big Round Top there were Federal Signal units with a view for miles around.

Longstreet's every movement/position would of been reported.

 

As you mentioned....Jeb's  Cavalry tried to get behind Meade on 3rd. but met the Federal's cavalry with disastrous results, so i would imagine any other

cavalry movement on any other day would of met with the same results as the 2 Cavalry battles on the 3rd .

I believe iirc, Meade had the VI Corps in Reserves in the vicinity/behind Little Round Top also..

 

But an interesting idea never the less.......

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I think whats more interesting, so far leading this poll is the option to dig in.

[CSA Watkins]

nvm,, dig-in = Fortifying/Buildings breastworks/Barricades in ACW/i.e. Culps hill evening 1st day.../ Little Round Top(20th Maine),, nothing to do with digging.

Confused it with the later war term, with actually Digging.....

[Lannes]

I have always preferred Darthmod's versions of Total War games. I would very much like the Total War feel of an ACW campaign. So, either a Darthmod ACW conversion of Fall of the Samurai, or a Darthmod Total War ACW would be very welcome. I would pay AUS$100 for the latter.

[TheRomanRuler]

2v2 3v3 4v4 Multi-player (coop would get my friend to play this game)

Option to Dig In, Build Barracades

Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column

Detach Regiments from Brigade 

Modding 

Brigades target more than just one enemy within their firing arc

Adjustable speed variable (Slow, Normal, Fast)

Sandbox Mode, Scenario Generator 

 

I don`t know about order/importance, but i can`t reduce my choices any further, these are what i really want.