What would you like added to UGG

[trum117]

I would really like a kill/death breakdown of all units during your campaign.

[crakinshot]

There are a few nice items in the poll. However, I think you should really consider a more strategic option; a much bigger map and allow using roads.

 

I used to play 2nd manassas and it was exceptionally interesting to have to "pick the ground" and move your corps/divisions along roads. In effect you could win/loss by your decisions on which roads to take. Scouting was also became incredibly important.

[Randall C. Reed]

Excellent idea, Mr. Blunt. But, please take a look at your polling form. If you have 153 replies and 76 of them want surrender, that is closer to 50%, unless I am missing the obvious?

[Randall C. Reed]

The biggest missing links in this current configuration UGG falls into two areas: (1) Questionable simulation of mid-18th Century linear battle tactics and, (2) lack of coherent linkage between scenarios and a "campaign" game:

 

(1) Gettysburg was a classic example of 18th Century linear tactics, which places a premium on concentration of fire and the preservation of a unit's flanks. Thus, protecting a brigade's flanks is the critical concern of commanders. This concept appears weak in UGG. I have played games where I have had a brigade assaulted from the front and from the rear (admittedly, it was the Iron Brigade) and, instead of breaking immediately, it simply "walked through" one of the attacking units. The ability to protect flanks and minimize casualties are the keys to unit morale historically. I would like to see it improved in the spiral development the game is undergoing currently. That would make me a happy camper!

 

(2) In my limited playing experience, starting the game, ending the scenario, and then starting a second scenario that does not reference the first playing period's unit damage or tactical position just seems rather bizarre to me. The first time I played, I did not recognize this anomaly and I was confused all during the second game. I knew where I ended up in the first game (practically pushing the AoP off the southern edge of the playing area) and what brigades and battalions had been decimated. Suddenly, none of that was relevant in the next game. And it was still the same day! Say what??? What we need is an historical set of scenarios for the full three-day battle. Right now, we are offered three "what if" scenarios at the start of the next game with nice maps and tactical summaries, but with no relevance whatsoever to what happened in the previous game. I read elsewhere that the reason for the scenario set-up is to better support the iPad or tablet versions of this game. I am no platform czar, and I know mobile apps are the "hot" item right now, but I think it is an unfortunate trade-off. I would strongly urge the publishers to consider fielding two versions: a slimmed-down UGG Lite for mobile apps and a full-up UGG Plus for the serious gamer. Really serious gamers are playing this thing on a powerful i5xxx CPU with a wicked video card and a 23-inch or larger monitor.

 

(3) If they would consider my suggestion in (2), above, it would enhance the game considerably. It would reinforce the Grand Tactical considerations of the three-day battle and it would give enough "overhead" to enhanced an overlooked aspect of game play: the past game analysis and reflection. As the Squire noted in a previous post on this thread, we old farts (actually, I've been doing this since I was 11) enjoy seeing the AAR, the aftermath, the post mortem, etc. We like to study what happened and what could have happened. The current unit status summary is awesome and is a key element in a full function replay. All that is needed is the ability to toggle between the great unit status summary, and a full-sized snapshot of the end-of-game map showing unit dispositions. After that, we would, of course, ask for a frame-sampled replay mode that replays a game in 60 seconds or less. That would be so awesome. <wink!>

 

I handed in my survey, which was a great job, Mr. Blunt! Look forward to following comments from other gamers into UGG. Peace, out!

[Randall C. Reed]

The biggest missing links in this current configuration UGG falls into two areas: (1) Questionable simulation of mid-18th Century linear battle tactics and, (2) lack of coherent linkage between scenarios and a "campaign" game:

 

(1) Gettysburg was a classic example of 18th Century linear tactics, which places a premium on concentration of fire and the preservation of a unit's flanks. Thus, protecting a brigade's flanks is the critical concern of commanders. This concept appears weak in UGG. I have played games where I have had a brigade assaulted from the front and from the rear (admittedly, it was the Iron Brigade) and, instead of breaking immediately, it simply "walked through" one of the attacking units. The ability to protect flanks and minimize casualties are the keys to unit morale historically. I would like to see it improved in the spiral development the game is undergoing currently. That would make me a happy camper!

 

(2) In my limited playing experience, starting the game, ending the scenario, and then starting a second scenario that does not reference the first playing period's unit damage or tactical position just seems rather bizarre to me. The first time I played, I did not recognize this anomaly and I was confused all during the second game. I knew where I ended up in the first game (practically pushing the AoP off the southern edge of the playing area) and what brigades and battalions had been decimated. Suddenly, none of that was relevant in the next game. And it was still the same day! Say what??? What we need is an historical set of scenarios for the full three-day battle. Right now, we are offered three "what if" scenarios at the start of the next game with nice maps and tactical summaries, but with no relevance whatsoever to what happened in the previous game. I read elsewhere that the reason for the scenario set-up is to better support the iPad or tablet versions of this game. I am no platform czar, and I know mobile apps are the "hot" item right now, but I think it is an unfortunate trade-off. I would strongly urge the publishers to consider fielding two versions: a slimmed-down UGG Lite for mobile apps and a full-up UGG Plus for the serious gamer. Really serious gamers are playing this thing on a powerful i5xxx CPU with a wicked video card and a 23-inch or larger monitor.

 

(3) If they would consider my suggestion in (2), above, it would enhance the game considerably. It would reinforce the Grand Tactical considerations of the three-day battle and it would give enough "overhead" to enhanced an overlooked aspect of game play: the past game analysis and reflection. As the Squire noted in a previous post on this thread, we old farts (actually, I've been doing this since I was 11) enjoy seeing the AAR, the aftermath, the post mortem, etc. We like to study what happened and what could have happened. The current unit status summary is awesome and is a key element in a full function replay. All that is needed is the ability to toggle between the great unit status summary, and a full-sized snapshot of the end-of-game map showing unit dispositions. After that, we would, of course, ask for a frame-sampled replay mode that replays a game in 60 seconds or less. That would be so awesome. <wink!>

 

I handed in my survey, which was a great job, Mr. Blunt! Look forward to following comments from other gamers into UGG. Peace, out!

[R.E.B.Blunt]

The poll is at the limit. I cannot add any more to the poll without removing something else. Any change in the poll would render it not accurate. For this reason the poll can still be voted on but I cannot add any more options. Thanks for everyone for voting. I'm am sure this poll is of great use for the developers to decide what avenue to steer the game in coming updates.

[Aggressive_Kunst]

ahhhhhhhhhhh, PLEASE ADD CAPTURE GUNS^^

 

remove "game is perfect"

[Stuka]

I'd like to see ability to alter unit amounts in custom battles but I see you can't add more options but yeah for future reference, ability to say like 10000 base units for both and like 3 waves of 4000 reinforcments for each as example or if you wanted a one sided battle you could do that too =P

[Aggressive_Kunst]

It is true that the game is good as it is even if i would love to capture guns. The gameplay is almost perfect. Adding more details (more generals, detach regiment etc) would horrible slow down the game.

 

I think the most important and most interesting thing is the Multiplayer.

 

But lots of things would be nice to have without effecting the game (afterbattlereport, review last matches, surrender etc).

[Hobo]

Please add setup zones that are based on the previous battles final disposition.  

[thorisgodpoo]

I love this whole list, and wish that all of it can be implemented. For me, I would honestly love to see a Full Civil War Campaign as the end result from this game. But since you're going for immediate impact, digging in or brigades being able to attack multiple enemies with firing arc if possible would be my opinion as to something the game could use. The base game right now is smooth and simple so I can't wait if a full civil war campaign is implemented.

[Randall C. Reed]

For me, I would honestly love to see a Full Civil War Campaign as the end result from this game. But since you're going for immediate impact... being able to attack multiple enemies with firing arc if possible would be my opinion as to something the game could use. The base game right now is smooth and simple so I can't wait if a full civil war campaign is implemented.

 

Oh, thorisgodpoo, you are an eager bunny, aren't you! If they get the system tuned and re-organized the way some of us want, they can produce re-creations of every battle of significance in the ACW. You raise an interesting question to which I have insufficient knowledge to respond. On the one hand, most soldiers, since time immemorial, have had strong survival tendencies to engage the closest threat at the moment. Thus, it is possible that infantry on one end of a battle line could engage different threats than those at the opposite end. But from a C&C perspective, how many separate targets could an infantry regiment engage in the heat and confusion of battle? Remember, the over-arching issue would be the ability to give commands and change those commands and responding to those commands at will during the din and carnage of battle. I would love to hear opinions from some of our more erudite ACW experts in the forum about this.

[thorisgodpoo]

I figure this is where implementing subdivisions of a battalion comes into play. I figure if it's designed so that the divisons can make independent decisions, but can suffer morale penalties if not with the battalion general. That way, you'll be able to achieve a lot more tactical routs splitting up the battalion to get a flanking position and also solves the problem of aiming at multiple enemies. I sincerely wish I knew anything about coding as I would help in any capacity I could.

[Robbyhouse]

Regarding the considered option of enabling brigades to entrench themselves and the limited areas of the battlefield where such defensive measures were taken I think that the map should reflect the series of breastworks constructed under direction of BG Green all through the night of July 1st into the early AM hours of July 2nd for all custom made games available in Single & Multiplayer game scenarios.  It would be a neat if Cemetery Hill could feature the lunettes dug to insulate portions of the artillery crammed onto that hill.  Obviously the defense factor of stationing a unit there would be astronomically high relative to unimproved terrain.  But on the whole I don't see a great need for giving brigades the option myself.  Would much rather energy focused on coming up with some option to enable splitting off of regiments in order to better handle multiple threats that don't require a brigade size solution.

[Karle]

I would also like to see the possibility of variable appearance of units, perhaps arriving on different roads or different times to make things a bit more unpredictable just like in real life.  

 

As for formations of brigades, in the game they are always in a line.  However, in actual battles, depending on the situation, the actual line could be formed like an "L" especially when on the defensive.  This reduces the fire to the front, but also provides a better defense against the side which is refused or bent back.  Another is to send some "skirmishers" forward to "find" the enemy.  I would also like to see brigades form in accordance with natural formations such as stone walls or along ridges etc.  I have a sense in the game that these natural defensive positions are kind of ignored in the positioning of the formations.

 

Last, when a unit is instructed to "charge" I have a sense that I have little control over in what direction or against which unit they charge.  I have had units charge off in a different direction that I intended.

 

These are just ideas.  Do not get me wrong.  I love the game.

 

Karle 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Karle

[ninjaphobos]

I would love to see a full campaign, but I realize taking on that behemoth is a several year project.  As a prelude, it might be easier to put together one or two battle maps and units for pivotal "Class A" battles that were roughly evenly matched and could have gone either way such as Shiloh, Fredericksburg, Stones River, etc.  ... for me, Shiloh being the highest priority.  The battlefield is complex and pressed against a river, which could be a natural edge/barrier to the map on the east side.

 

That said, I am perfectly content to play and replay Gettysburg.  The game is incredible as it stands.

[Grognard_JC]

Hi, I'm pretty new here but I do have some ideas about what should be included.

 

1) Multiplayer with the full 3-4 days battle. It would be awesome.

2) 2V2 and more in multiplayer. It would be a good argument for sales too.

3) True modding potential (so we get accurate uniforms, or even complete NW overhauls)

4) LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS : getting in the ennemy's back is not as rewarding as it should be.

5) Maybe even less difference btw Union and CSA.

6) In the battle, when you have a decision to take, it should be said wether the move will occur in the evening or in the incoming day. I twice got my campaign ruined by a mislead choice due to the text. I chose to press on, while thinking it would still be on the same day. Actually, I pressed on, but the 2nd day, when the ennemy got its reinforcements, which is suicide at this point for me.

[kc87]

More multiplayer replayability. ( We need the random battles like SMG had!!! )

 

More commands for Infantry ( fire while advancing, Fire at will, volley ) 

[boumboum]

Hi. I am new to this forum. I haven't read the rest of it so I don't know if it has already been proposed (I imagine it has, and if so I apologize).

 

The map is very beautiful but even with the "M" option on, it is difficult (maybe just because I'm a newcomer and not familiar with this battle) to know how high is the ground. Does the engine allow to know at which height (altitude) stands each point ?

 

If so, it would be great to either :

a. Add an option to write in a corner of a screen the altitude of the ground the mouse cursor points out.

b. Click on a little something to activate the option, click on the map and a little flag or something appear to let us know how high it stands.

 

Best regards.

[Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck]

Possibility of ending the battle before the set time has passed. Once you capture all objectives, the enemy should withdraw if it sees it has no chance of winning.

[kc87]

  This game really needs to allow regimental control, that is the one major feature I feel that holds this game back, having static brigades severely limits the tactics you can employ and simplifies the gameplay.  

 

  Also  adding 2v2, 3v3 , 4v4 with larger full day scenarios with a chat lobby would do alot for this game or future games. This is all stuff that was available in 1997, with a thriving and social multiplayer community the game will become alot more popular. 

Edited October 24, 2015 by kc87

[R.E.B.Blunt]

I think it is now safe to say the top three elements which would be advantageous to future Ultimate General Titles. The Ultimate General Forum has spoken.

 

1) Dig in and Build Barracades

 

2) Unit Formation Line, Double Line, Skirmish, Column

 

3) Surrendering Units

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

My "main" vote goes to 2vs2 battles (or more, but that would be good enough).

 

Multiplayer is already extremely fun, but sometimes I must admit that the tension it puts on me slightly "ruins" the experience... Being able to share command with a friend would ease that a lot, and would add a whole new layer of fun given by the need to coordinate each one's efforts (with the inevitable satisfaction in case of victory and the mutual accusations in case of defeat... just try to imagine it!).

 

Not to speak about the fact that it would be a potential, added boost to sales as people who enjoy the game would then want to drag in not just one but three of their friends to play it in MP :-) .

[Hister]

Ha yes, co-op, that's an awesome idea!

[Seleukos of Olympia]

Surrendering units would be a most welcome addition. It could be as simple as determining whether a shattered unit's immediate line of retreat is blocked, and if so having them surrender. The top review on Steam right now (not mine) focuses a lot of rage on the facet of retreating units slipping through the player's lines and then regrouping behind them.

 

Of course, I don't know what kind of programming is involved for this, but it seems simpler than most other suggestions. I'd also welcome some moddability, as an old RTW modder, but would not insist on it.