What would you like added to UGG

[TDuke]

I really like that idea. That is the premise of what I meant to say. You just worded it better. If I change it now all the votes will be removed from that one so I cannot. Wish I could.

 

Turning VPs off would have no sense imho. All battles would turn into a dull and boring "meeting-engagement" à la Total War where you have to route and destroy the entire enemy force every time...

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Turning VPs off would have no sense imho. All battles would turn into a dull and boring "meeting-engagement" à la Total War where you have to route and destroy the entire enemy force every time...

 

I would disagree with that statement. No idea what imho means, but I believe it would in fact bring more realism to the game. In the real American Civil War battles you think the Generals said "we need to capture that Hill with the Giant VP for 4000 points"?

 

Instead battles would either be Static (Meaning they fought battle line to battle line) or they would march their army and flank to force the enemy to another position or they would be killed. Battles were fought so one side would inflict more casualties on the other or force the enemy into retreat. Battles were not fought to gather Victory points.

 

Having no VP's would allow battles that could be fought on any portion of the map. It would allow more variety. Generals could use different techniques to fight their battles rather than being forced to defend pre determined area's. Given the option to turn on or off the VP's I know I would turn them off sometimes, sometimes I would leave it on.

 

Especially when Multiplayer is released.

[TDuke]

VPs simulate the importance of a particular location, which is absolutely realistic. Morevoer , remember it's a game, vps give battle dynamics, "a sense" to follow, remove them and, expecially in multiplayer, most of players will just camper  forcing the opposite player to attack just to do something, trust me m8    Also for AI vps are important for similar reasons.

 

As I already wrote in an other thread, most of serious wargames have VPs not for a "caprice" but becouse they are an irrevocable abstraction/compromise .

[David Fair]

TDuke,

I don't think your goal is to destroy the game experience for others.

But by not offering the alternative to turn off VPs that is certainly the result.

This is an application of the law of unintended consequences.

I respect that you have an opinion.

But I don't agree with your opinion.

Why do you need to impose your opinion on those who don't share your perspective?

This is an issue without a right or wrong answer.

All that is being asked is that VPs be allowed to be visible or invisible.

We are not asking for the game designers to reprogram the AI.

Why is your way the only way?

I disagree that it even the best or most correct way.

Outside of the military context isn't the term "serious wargamer" and oxymoron?

Wargames are by definition entertainment.

I'm more entertained by playing a game without VPs.

I don't think it necessarily follows that I'm wrong.

And even if I am wrong who cares?

One of the reasons there is a distinction between military historians and gamers is because anyone serious about military history understands that VPs create an arbitrary value that has nothing to do with military relevance.

VPs devolve games into "paint by numbers" strategy IMO.

I don't agree with your logic that VPs simulate anything other than a "paint by numbers" game which you call "'a sense' to follow".

In my opinion this is just non-sense to follow.

You say tomato I say tomato.

It is ok and healthy to disagree - it's just a game.

I don't believe that VPs are the only solution.

I don't trust you when you say that players are going to "camper".

If they "camper" I'll find more interesting playmates.

Game dynamics should reflect the military situation.

The fact that there are people who choose to do nothing should not impact people who come to experience the strategy game.

Here's a parallel perspective to consider:

A parent has a child in diapers.

That child who has not potty trained needs to wear diapers.

However, this parent also has children that have potty trained.

Do all of the parent's children need to stay in diapers until the youngest grows out of diapers?

Isn't the option to get the potty trained kids out of diapers preferable for all involved?

By allowing VPs to be turned on and off you can give the players the luxury of growing beyond diapers in their game strategy maturation.

Regarding "camper" - players that choose the sit and wait will rapidly gain a reputation.

A player's "reputation" could offer players scores to each other for games, etc.

Alternatively, the game could give negative feedback - Note from President Lincoln: "Your army is superior in numbers - move now because you are destroying the morale of the nation when you sit on your duff".

There is more than one answer.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

VPs simulate the importance of a particular location

 

If the location were to hold a specific importance whether or not it has a VP on it would be irrelevant. If its a big hill I am going to put my Brigade and my cannons on it. Its as simple as that. If the enemy flanks me and makes my position unattainable, I can fall back and save my units to fight later. If the hill has a VP on it and the enemy flanks and makes my position unattainable, I would have to throw more units into the fray to defend a position that any real general in his right mind would fall back.

 

I understand the point you are trying to prove. Just wish you could understand that there are some of us that do not need VP to tell us what is important and what is not. We are fully capable of discerning that information for ourselves.

[David Fair]

The presentation that VPs are an "irrevocable abstraction/compromise" only confirms your own unwillingness to compromise.

This logic is fundamentally flawed - it's a game; not the Bill of Rights with inherent irrevocable truths on the condition of man.

Not every game has VPs. Thus it follows that VPs cannot be "irrevocable".

Strategy and the ability to inflict casualties determines the value of a particular location in war.

If you want to simulate war your should simulate the facts of war.

Or at least not burden the freedom of others when you deviate from military reality.

[Tormidal]

VPs simulate the importance of a particular location, which is absolutely realistic. Morevoer , remember it's a game, vps give battle dynamics, "a sense" to follow, remove them and, expecially in multiplayer, most of players will just camper  forcing the opposite player to attack just to do something, trust me m8    Also for AI vps are important for similar reasons.

 

As I already wrote in an other thread, most of serious wargames have VPs not for a "caprice" but becouse they are an irrevocable abstraction/compromise .

 

 

I love your contradictions, first, you say that removing VPs will make the game a meet-and-engage sort of game, like Total War. Now, you say that removing them will turn the game into a camp fest. Make up your mind, mate.

If anything, keeping VPs will help more likely turn the game into a camp fest, because the person who gets to the highest-point VPs first is most likely going to set on the position to hold onto it.

If you remove VPs, theres nothing holding you to a particular spot, reducing the chance of camping.

[David Fair]

Tormidal is correct - the most advantageous thing for the AI to do in Phase 1 is to sit on Herr's Ridge and hope the Union attacks.

Herr's Ridge is the most valuable VP location in Phase 1.

When the CSA AI attacks in Phase 1 they frequently lose Herr's Ridge.

You'd think the AI would be programmed to defend Herr's Ridge rather than have Buford's Wonder Videttes pillage the CSA Artillery in the rear areas combined with Buford's Wonder Skirmishers defeat Archer and Davis.

[Tormidal]

Ill agree with David, that it(VPs) should be something that can be disabled/enabled in the gameplay settings.

[David Fair]

VPs make the AI sit on positions long after the positions are militarily viable/relevant to hold.

This often results in units getting surrounded trying to hold "The Alamo".

Additionally, VPs also encourage the AI to make single brigade runs to a VP location.

If the goal is to make the AI behave "smarter" then some of this "less smart" behavior needs to be changed to improve the game.

[Herodotus]

Surrendering for me is a big one, along with mount/dismount cavalry and limbering/unlimbering artillery. Surrendering Units is a must-have though. Also have to include killing/taking prisoner of generals and other commanders for historical authenticity as they were almost always in the front line of attack and were killed, badly wounded or taken prisoner (all three occurring to General Armistead, though not in that order obviously ).

[TDuke]

I love your contradictions, first, you say that removing VPs will make the game a meet-and-engage sort of game, like Total War. Now, you say that removing them will turn the game into a camp fest. Make up your mind, mate.

If anything, keeping VPs will help more likely turn the game into a camp fest, because the person who gets to the highest-point VPs first is most likely going to set on the position to hold onto it.

If you remove VPs, theres nothing holding you to a particular spot, reducing the chance of camping.

 

 

First of all some clarifications:

 

1) I respect other points of view

2) I wouldn't mind an option to disable Vps if many players long for it

3) I agree with David Fair statements "theoretically"

 

but... I repeat, it's not a case most of wargames (tactical or strategical) use Vps, not for programming indolence. With all respect, I think most of you have not much experience in multiplayer where, unfortunately (not me)  most of players want just to win and care nothing about realistic/historical behaviours. I didn't fall in any contradictions, the Total War example is very demonstrative: skirmish battles don't have "a sense", and armies should just crouch frontal each other, every battle is quite the same, and, most of all, why should I leave my initial position and just not get entreched? for what purpose? For gentleman agreement? For an honourable war conduct? Yes it would be nice but it' s not going to be that way except you are going to play just vs trusted friends.

 

Same for ai. It's not easy give it priorities goals  without VPs, you will probably (as, once again, happens on Total War games) experience an ai who just  follows and pursues your forces along  the whole battlefield, like a dull cat and mouse-game ... it's really the kind of battle you are looking for? Anyway it would be nice if Nick or other guys involved would give their opinion... I may be wrong of course but decades or wargaming taught me something.

 

Ps

 

Sorry for my bad english

[Tormidal]

but... I repeat, it's not a case most of wargames (tactical or strategical) use Vps, not for programming indolence. With all respect, I think most of you have not much experience in multiplayer where, unfortunately (not me)  most of players want just to win and care nothing about realistic/historical behaviours. I didn't fall in any contradictions, the Total War example is very demonstrative: skirmish battles don't have "a sense", and armies should just crouch frontal each other, every battle is quite the same, and, most of all, why should I leave my initial position and just not get entreched? for what purpose? For gentleman agreement? For an honourable war conduct? Yes it would be nice but it' s not going to be that way except you are going to play just vs trusted friends.

 

Same for ai. It's not easy give it priorities goals  without VPs, you will probably (as, once again, happens on Total War games) experience an ai who just  follows and pursues your forces along  the whole battlefield, like a dull cat and mouse-game ... it's really the kind of battle you are looking for? Anyway it would be nice if Nick or other guys involved would give their opinion... I may be wrong of course but decades or wargaming taught me something.

 

Ps

 

Sorry for my bad english

As someone who's played both Starcraft and Supreme Commander competitively for years, Im going to disagree with you(Although, those games do have a much different nature than UGG and TW). Its true, most players do want to win, and typically wont care about how armies would have acted back then. While you do have a point, that Total War skirmishes dont have much of an objective(except to destroy the enemy), this is due to a lack of objectives in the battle. Removing VPs will have a similar effect, although, judging from Darth's work on Total War's battle AI, I don't doubt that he would be able to pull it off.

[David Fair]

TW is not a good metric - IMO the game is without a purpose.

Gettysburg has both historic context and a mutually exclusive goal - end the ACW with a smashing victory.

Anything less than a complete victory for the South was a marginal loss. There is a great video posted on this topic today at:

>>>Ultimate General: Gettysburg Feedback <<< [uPDATE] Patch 0.845 19/7/2014

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

Hey what about being able to switch between sides before each phase?  So you could start as one side and then have the option to take over the other for the next part? 

[Tormidal]

How about a game speed slider?

[David Fair]

A speed slider is a great suggestion as sometimes the game becomes a click-fest with too much of an arcade quality about it.

This is especially the case when units are routing and you can't get the game to click on formed units that are masked by routing units.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

New options added to Poll. Remember you can delete your votes and recast votes as it is updated each time.

[SG4tw]

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.

[N.C.rebel]

What difficulty was you on?

[N.C.rebel]

Never mind you did random you probably got the cautious or something play dynamic, determined, or cunning the AI is very smart and wise and challenging with them.

[E_Budz]

I would really like a kill/death breakdown of all units during your campaign. And perhaps being able to view the battle field just after the battle ends before you have to goto the next battle

[tornsage]

Best civ war game potential ever ! Need the other battles !!

 

 

[MikeK]

I made separate suggestions for icons to help ID corps and divisions and their respective leaders. The Corps commanders do some riding around, as they should. I hope the division commanders are focused on sticking with their division, providing an incentive to keep divisions together. This would require changes to battle set-up, which does not group brigades of a division together very well, although in a lull that is something that would be corrected to keep the divisions together other than brigades assigned particular tasks. I also try to keep the Div arty with the Div much of the time unless massing a battery.

[David Fair]

MikeK,

 

The design team says that Division Commanders are all rolled into Corps Commanders.

 

So they are not with their units - and they wander to the extent that the Corps Commander wanders.

 

The only way to keep divisions together is manually - division commanders aren't something that will be in the game to help keep divisions organized.