Patch 0.85 delay

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello to all fine Ultimate General: Gettysburg players!

 

It was scheduled to provide today the next update for the game. The patch would include various AI improvements, bug fixes, new Generals Sprites with more distinguishable icons and Render optimization to repair fixes for players that anticipate CTD because of OpenGL/Direct3D issues.

 

Unfortunately the Render optimization is not yet fully finished. Releasing the patch in that state would include some bugs that would bring instability to the game. So we decided to postpone it until we can guarantee an improved gameplay experience comparing to the current version.

 

We are sorry for this. We will try to offer the patch the soonest next week.

Until then, we hope you still enjoy Ultimate General: Gettysburg! Have a nice weekend everyone.

 

The Game-Labs Team

[CSA Watkins]

Thx for the update, Keeping the community informed with ongoing news/delays is appreciated.
 
IMHO: Your hard work/devotion to delivering a Great Game, coupled with making sure the community is well informed with all aspects
of the ongoing developments(feedback)is a sign of appreciation on your behalf towards the community.
This speaks Volumes within itself about your team.
 
Have a Great weekend Also,
Cheers

[SeaDog]

No problem sir, have a nice weekend you too!

[David Fair]

SeaDog,

Ye need a bit of roll & yaw on yer video - that'll make the landlubbers chum the sea!

 

I've stayed away from the naval action contributions due to time constraints.  

My sailing experience is all from the Pacific NW and Alaska.  

 

The highlight of my sailing experience was the turn around cruise on the U.S.S. Constitution.  Unfortunately they don't use sail power for this exercise.

 

Best of luck with Age of Sail.

[Rabbitt81]

My two cents on the game so far...A line-of-site indicator for artillery would be very helpful and eliminate the need for a map overlay. Something like the current range indicator but a different color perhaps. I say this because I keep having to pay extra attention to if the artillery are firing during a battle, which then takes away from the action. Second cent is the black hats seem to be over powered- causing a lot of casualties making the Confederate troops retreat way to fast during the first day's battle when they appear around the middle of the map.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

 Second cent is the black hats seem to be over powered- causing a lot of casualties making the Confederate troops retreat way to fast during the first day's battle when they appear around the middle of the map.

 

The "Black Hats" or Iron Brigade was one of the Best Brigades if not THE BEST the Union had in its entire Army. I would argue that they are weak in this game. When you flank them they tend to run just as easy as any other Brigade. I would like to see them actually be stronger and with-stand more than they currently can. Even with 4 Brigades and one Skirmish unit beating the Union on the first day as Confederates on Determined difficulty is still rather simple. As long as you can keep the Union in front of your line and not let them get around your flank its so easy to keep pushing them back.

 

What I still find silly is seeing Reynolds of the 1st Corps still alive on the Historical Second day. That is anything but Historical...

[Thomasew]

What I still find silly is seeing Reynolds of the 1st Corps still alive on the Historical Second day. That is anything but Historical...

 

You're joking right ????

 

What's the point of playing a historical wargame, .. if the game has to automatically keep correcting (e.g. kill off Reynolds) to maintain historical accuracy. So, what you are saying, .. is that nobody should play as the Confederates, .. as historically, .. they didn't win, .. and that the game should automatically ensure you can't win.    

 

Now,  ... THAT ... is beyond just silly.

 

 

Cheers

Tom

[Aotstovall]

Tom that was my initial reaction also.. but REB is talking about the historical scenario you can choose, not the ongoing campaign, its labeled ''historical scenario''.. i can see how it would bother some but i just see it as an oversight.

[blueakomoon]

There has been discussion in other threads of having the ability to wound or kill generals in game, then having other generals replace them in later scenarios. I don't know if the game developers have any plans on making that so.

[Thomasew]

Tom that was my initial reaction also.. but REB is talking about the historical scenario you can choose, not the ongoing campaign, its labeled ''historical scenario''.. i can see how it would bother some but i just see it as an oversight.

 

Hi,

 

Historically, certain forces and leaders arrived at the battle that was to become Gettysburg, .. all that matters, really, .. is that they arrive at the correct time and location. What happens after that is up to you .. irrespective of the Scenario, .. historical or hypothetical.

 

Who got killed, and when, ... becomes less significant. It's the Battle of Gettysburg that's significant, .. and how would you have fought the battle, .. using your available forces and under whose leadership.

 

Cheers

Tom

[Thomasew]

There has been discussion in other threads of having the ability to wound or kill generals in game, then having other generals replace them in later scenarios. I don't know if the game developers have any plans on making that so.

 

Hi,

 

 

Now, .. that would make more sense.

 

Having your Leaders/Generals at risk, and possibly wounded or killed .. might certainly change the outcome, .. but only if the individual qualities of each Leader/General is modeled/simulated.

 

I think that UGG is a great recreation of the B of G, .. beautifully presented, .. and certainly worth far more than the asking price.

 

I'm not sure if we should expect such intricate details e.g. Individual AI per General etc., .. given the additional work, that I'm sure that that would entail.

 

.. perhaps an .. Ultimate General Gettysburg: Advanced Edition .. is on the cards somewhere down the road.

 

 

Cheers

Tom

[Technopiper]

The "Black Hats" or Iron Brigade was one of the Best Brigades if not THE BEST the Union had in its entire Army. I would argue that they are weak in this game. When you flank them they tend to run just as easy as any other Brigade. I would like to see them actually be stronger and with-stand more than they currently can.

The brigade is already very strong the way it is in the game. Just because it performed very well historically doesn't mean we should represent them as super humans. They were not, and should be able to be destroyed the way any other human beings can be destroyed. Flanking is devastating to any combat unit. Holding a magnifying glass over a particular unit or general would set the entire battle off-balance. What so great about this game it applies a common fighting system over the entire battle. Too many "special rules" will destroy this game. No more Total War heroics, please.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Tom that was my initial reaction also.. but REB is talking about the historical scenario you can choose, not the ongoing campaign, its labeled ''historical scenario''.. i can see how it would bother some but i just see it as an oversight.

 

Bingo, I thought I made it clear I was talking about the HISTORICAL game... Guess some do not know how to read.

 

The brigade is already very strong the way it is in the game. Just because it performed very well historically doesn't mean we should represent them as super humans. They were not, and should be able to be destroyed the way any other human beings can be destroyed. Flanking is devastating to any combat unit. Holding a magnifying glass over a particular unit or general would set the entire battle off-balance. What so great about this game it applies a common fighting system over the entire battle. Too many "special rules" will destroy this game. No more Total War heroics, please.

 

No Idea what "Total War Heroics mean's", Maybe just a derogatory term. Still makes no sense to me.

 

The Iron Brigade were outfitted better than normal soldiers. Had better training, Superior leadership and in many occasions while the rest of the Union army were in flight away from battle the Black Hat boys stood and fought against clear odds, even when surrounded. In many battles they did this.

 

I do not want to see supermen but I would like to see them stronger than they currently are. It is just my opinion.

 

I find playing as the Confederates its incredibly easy to wipe the field of the chicken neck blue bellies even when they have 6 brigades and like 5 skirmishers and cav. (No idea why people keep saying the Yankees are too strong) The Iron Brigade should be able to with-stand anything Heth can throw at them. Seeing as he was a Competent General at best. Reynolds was far superior to Heth... In my opinion.

[N.C.rebel]

The Iron Brigade at the end of the war were very depleted so many lives were lost since they were hard fighting men and had to be refitted a lot. At Gettysburg they put up a hell of a fight on day 1 but were basically mowed down and really didn't see much fighting te next two days.

[David Fair]

R.E.B.Blunt -

As you and many others have mentioned the AI is not challenging enough.

When I play as the Union I get Triumphant Victories.

When I play as the CSA I also get Triumphant Victories.

 

Nerfing a single Union Brigade is not a solution that will prevent it being, "incredibly easy to wipe the field of the chicken neck blue bellies..."

 

The AI is just not challenging enough - and the VPs reinforce this with Victory Conditions based on VPs.

After the game has more balance and is more challenging - then nerfing individual brigades makes more sense.

 

IMO the Iron Brigade seems about right.  Once again - we simply have different perspectives.

 

If you provide some specifics on how the, "Iron Brigade were outfitted better than normal soldiers" I'd be delighted to change my opinion.  

Are you talking about the Hardee hat?

What other equipment that was superior to other units?

 

After John Gibbon took command the Iron Brigade was drilled until it hated its officers.  

SNAFU for crack outfits.

 

Grant and Sherman preferred western troops to eastern troops.  

It is an interesting question if other western brigades were brought east if there would have been more "Iron Brigades".

 

 

Historical Iron Brigade baseline:

 

The Western Brigade (Not yet having earned their nom de guerre - Iron Brigade) inspired neither awe nor praise at its May 1861 debut in Washington.

The only all-Western infantry brigade serving in the Union’s Eastern Theater armies, it included five colorfully named regiments: the Calico (6th Wisconsin),

the Huckleberries (7th Wisconsin),

the Babies (19th Indiana), and

the Ragged Asstetical (2nd Wisconsin),

 

Veteran Aubrey Cullen, 2nd Wisconsin, noted, “from the fact that the government contractors had run short of good material when they made the pantaloons…"  Specifically they wore a white patch on their rear.”

 

The 24th Michigan, last to join the Brigade in October 1862, was called the Feather-beds.

 

Then General John Gibbon took over in May, 1862.

He got his men in the 2nd Wisconsin pants of a quality to cover the rear.

He mandated they wear the distinctive black Hardee, a tall-crowned felt hat trimmed with an ostrich plume (while they lasted) and blue cord, its brim often fastened up on the left side with a brass eagle.  Fully accoutered, its front bore the 1st Corps patch (a red disk), an infantry horn, regiment number and company letter.

 

Gibbon also applied to his men “some discipline and drill to make them first class soldiers.” Soon “probably no brigade commander was more cordially hated by his men,” said one of those men. Another remembered, “There were early morning drills, before breakfast, forenoon drills, afternoon drills, evening and night drills, beside guard mounting and dress parades.” Tents had to be arrayed in neat lines, sentries had to walk their posts instead of simply sitting there and enlisted men had to salute officers.

 

The “hardy volunteers of the West” didn’t ease Gibbon’s way. As William Ray, a 23-year-old blacksmith of the 7th Wisconsin, gloated to his diary after a hot, sloppy summer drill, “the officers couldn’t make them do any better for they all worked together and when they take a notion and hang together, the officers never could handle us as they pleased.”

 

The Battle of Brawner’s Farm, a prelude to the Second Battle of Bull Run, in August 1862, helped bring Gibbon’s boys around. A veteran remembered, “Every soldier of that command thanked the little regular … when they were called upon to go into battle and enter upon the terrible work for which they had enlisted.”

 

McCellan observed at the Battle of South Mountain: “Gen. Gibbon … handled his brigade with as much precision and coolness as if upon parade, and the bravery of his troops could not be excelled.”

 

To compensate for the Iron Brigade’s casualties at Gettysburg, hundreds of Easterners were folded into the Iron Brigade. This new blood “forever destroyed the identity of the unique Western organization,” said Alan T. Nolan in his classic history of the unit. Conscripts – draftees – made another fundamental change to the previously all-volunteer force. In March 1864, the 1st Corps itself was dissolved, a mighty bitter pill. By early 1865, the Indiana and Michigan regiments had left the brigade, and the 2nd Wisconsin merged into the 6th Wisconsin.

 

“There is not with our men the headlong recklessness of new men … but there is a conviction from much experience in fighting, that safety is best had by steadiness, persistence in firing, and most of all by holding together.” As if conscience-prompted, he adds a formulaic tribute, “So, with the inducement of pride, duty, patriotism and personal preservation, they will stand together until the last.” A letter he left out of his memoir reveals, “The Iron Brigade has a record beyond reproach and a record it will vindicate, but the Iron Brigade terribly dreads a battle. 

 

In the fall of 1864, Ray and his Iron Brigade comrades who re-enlisted fought on. They helped bring victory at the Battle of Five Forks and they helped chase Gen. Robert E. Lee and his men all the way to Appomattox. 

 

See:  http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/the-iron-brigade/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[Nick Thomadis]

Eager to read your reports about AI and... Iron Brigade after the patch 0.85. Today we will offer.

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

This is one of the most informative and interesting Civil War History communities I have encountered.  The best part about spending $10, IMO.  

[R.E.B.Blunt]

If you provide some specifics on how the, "Iron Brigade were outfitted better than normal soldiers" I'd be delighted to change my opinion.  

Are you talking about the Hardee hat?

What other equipment that was superior to other units?

 

 

Many of the veterans who would be promoted to Corporal or Sgt. Would save their money and buy and outfit their own weapons. By the time of Gettysburg (1863) a large percentage of not just Iron Brigade but many regiments and companies within the 1st Corps/ Bufords Division veterans had Sergeants, Corporals and  even Privates armed with the (1860) Henry Rifle, (1819) Hall Rifle and the (1860) Spencer Carbine. These weapons were vastly superior to the Rifled Musket. These weapons were far more common for Union soldiers in the battle of Gettysburg than most suspect.

 

On a side note Custers Brigade or better known as The Michigan Brigade in fact had two entire regiments all armed with the Spencer.

 

Hope this helps with some of your confusion.

[Nick Thomadis]

Topic closed because patch 0.85 is available.

Last post of 

R.E.B.Blunt

is moved to feedback thread.

Thanks for the discussion made here.