Surrender?

[blueakomoon]

So, it seems to me that there should be some sort of surrender option for retreating units like in Sid's game.  For example, I had cut off Cutler on Oak Hill on the first day.  I had Oak Ridge, then Rodes comes down from the north.  I move both Davis and Pettigrew up from Oak Ridge and with 5 brigades (2 from Hill, 3 from Rodes) I surround Cutler.  And what happens?  Cutler retreats, then routed and plows clear through Pettigrew, routing him in the process even though he had <60% moral and condition.  And he takes only a hundred or so losses in the process.  Then reforms on Oak Ridge only to be surrounded again with the same results.  Are there any plans to making it possible to force units to surrender?

[R.E.B.Blunt]

You must be new to the forum. We have asked and asked for this in multiple threads. Does not look like Darth wants to add Surrender to this game. Best hope we have is that they allow us to eventually MOD the game and let us add it ourselves.

[blueakomoon]

Yeah, pretty much. Sorry about that. But thanks for the reply.

[Adrian]

Darth please add Surrender to game

[Husserl]

You must be new to the forum. We have asked and asked for this in multiple threads. Does not look like Darth wants to add Surrender to this game. Best hope we have is that they allow us to eventually MOD the game and let us add it ourselves.

 

It is not actually a matter of "likeness". We avoid to add new major features/mechanics while in Early Access and before the official full release that will force us to rebalance or/and revision large parts of the game. Our current main objective is to add the planned missing features, ensure the stability of the game and improve it as much as it is possible for the final version 1.0.  Of course the game will always be under improvement state and all the fun requests are noted. I am pretty sure that most of them will finally be added in UG:G.   

[David Fair]

What everyone wants to understand is your main objective.  

What are the "planned missing features"?

Is it possible to trade off some of these features in favor of POWs?

 

Historically the CSA took 5,000 Union prisoners on Day 1.

The Union lost about 11,000 effectives on Day 1.

Therefore about 45% of the Union losses were POWs on Day 1.

 

Surrendering is a key aspect of the historical Battle of Gettysburg - and fundamental to CSA victory in any kind of historical context.

 

We respect the design team and your decisions - it would just make it easier to understand with a bit more visibility into the tradeoffs..

[Edgy]

It is not actually a matter of "likeness". We avoid to add new major features/mechanics while in Early Access and before the official full release that will force us to rebalance or/and revision large parts of the game. Our current main objective is to add the planned missing features, ensure the stability of the game and improve it as much as it is possible for the final version 1.0.  Of course the game will always be under improvement state and all the fun requests are noted. I am pretty sure that most of them will finally be added in UG:G.   

 

Sorry, but in it's current state your game is pretty much unplayable. Retreating & routed units reforming behind your lines and then walking over to Vp's and winning the battle are killing this game. Once again I have just replayed the morning of the first day, Baxter and Paul along with Devins Skirmishers had all routed and retreated through Confederate lines, only to rally and stroll casually over to take Herr Ridge. So even though I acheived my objectives and took all the other VP's, routing most of the Union forces in the process, I am left with a 'draw' and forced to begin the next stage with my troops all backed up against the west edge of the map, with all the ground I had previously taken in Union hands.

 

Clearly this is unaceptable. At the very least routed/retreating units should be moving back towards their point of entry & away from the enemy, if their path of retreat is blocked then they should, without question, be surrendering.

[blueakomoon]

Edgy,

The 1st scenario is woefully unbalanced towards the Union.  They have 10 movable units while the Rebels have half that.  And historically, the Rebs were pushed back to Herr's ridge that morning.  Granted, units not retreating in the right direction is a known bug and is actually greatly improved.  I find that on that 1st battle, Just play it conservatively and leave a brigade on Herr's ridge.  Yes, it's a handicap and an unnecessary one, but just some friendly advice.

[Husserl]

@ Edgy

 

As noted, the game is under constant improvement. The wrong retreat issue is a major concern and it will be shorted out but we'll try to do it without adding a new game mechanic.

 

@ David

 

The next additions have to do with reports and statistics (pre-battle, post-battle, OoB, etc.), menu finalization (decision maps, etc.), multiplayer mode and some more... surprises. Of course there is the permanent process of bug fixes, AI and gameplay improvement but without adding new mechanics (unless it becomes inevitable). Another factor that forces us to be cautious in adding new mechanics is the expansion to the rest platforms (after PC, Mac and iOS, the version for Android and Linux will follow).    

[David Fair]

Thanks Husserl!

 

Cheers.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Thanks Husserl!!

Great news take all the time you guys need!!!

[Edgy]

Edgy,

The 1st scenario is woefully unbalanced towards the Union.  They have 10 movable units while the Rebels have half that.  And historically, the Rebs were pushed back to Herr's ridge that morning.  Granted, units not retreating in the right direction is a known bug and is actually greatly improved.  I find that on that 1st battle, Just play it conservatively and leave a brigade on Herr's ridge.  Yes, it's a handicap and an unnecessary one, but just some friendly advice.

 

Well actually only Davis's Brigade fell back to Herr's Ridge after they were flanked in the railroad cut (at which time many Confederates surrendered) But my point on commenting was that it's a game breaking bug, a solution to which could be, surrender. I totally appreciate that the game is under constant imporovement but, as it stands, I see the pathfinding of retreating/routed units as it's biggest problem. As to the balance of the early morning fight I think that the ability to take VP's needs to be removed from all but infantry brigades. While Cavalry & Skirmishers, quite rightly, should be able to slow down an infantry advance and prevent them taking VP's, they should not be able to capture them. What Buford did on the morning of July 1st was exceptional, but had he sent back to Wadsworth for orders it is highly unlikely that he would have been ordered into action against the flood of Confederates that were coming down those roads, not without full infantry support.

[David Fair]

Edgy,

 

Husserl stated, "...The wrong retreat issue is a major concern and it will be shorted out but we'll try to do it without adding a new game mechanic."

 

Your perspective is shared across the community and the design team.  What more can be said until we see the next iteration?

[MikeK]

Great game. Enemy my troops rout running through my formed troops and then through the artillery and resting troops behind, wreaking havoc among the gun crews, is a problem. Particularly as it doesn't seem like they can be cut down or countered in any way.  Routers head away from formed enemy, seek gaps when forced, and surrender or fight if cornered.  I can live with them just not doing damage/disruption to my forces by running through men they should be running from.

 

 

[Jethro]

I have no idea how the game is coded.  But, it seems retreats are now governed by units running toward things. 

 

While it's certainly true that routing units would move toward cover or whatever else might save their hides, the main thing they're doing is running away from things.  Namely, all those guys trying to kill them.

 

If retreating units simply moved opposite the direction of incoming fire, and towards perceived safety, this would likely solve the problem, yes?

 

However, this might not be as easy to code as it is to say. 

 

The only problem it won't solve is surrounded units who really should simply surrender - usually before the situation is entirely hopeless and they're actually surrounded.  I think knowing you're about to be cut off, surrounded and annihilated would cause morale to collapse, completely and hopelessly.  The obvious result is surrender.

[MikeK]

Routing is not a formulaic phenomenon.  The running away from part is important. Humans in a panic seem to be hard-wired to run directly away from the threat in focus even if that is not the best choice, and secondarily to join in the direction of a general flight (a herd effect but also a natural tendency to group together in combat). Default behavior can be overcome, and short of panic officers or natural leaders or simple tactical sense can guide a withdrawal and maintain some coherence and tactical direction in extricating themselves from a difficult situation.  

 

It is easy to make too much of "national characteristics of armies," but from war to war, over centuries, there are patterns, such as an English infantry tradition of stubbornly holding ground to the breaking point and an American recurrent behavior of bugging out of a bad position and quickly regrouping and rebounding to try again given some leadership. The fallback mechanism in the game implements part of this.   

[Jethro]

My point was there seems to be an issue of routing units going through opposing units.  In essence, they are routing directly into the very muzzles of enemy guns which made them rout in the first place.  It defies reason.  There should definitely be a mechanism - or formula - which prevents such a result.  I believe everyone agrees on that.

 

To be honest, I can't imagine another way to program a rout or retreat.  Isn't the whole idea to get away from the danger?  How do you tell a computer program to emulate human behavior in this example, except to say "tell that unit to get away from the business end of those enemy guns while it still can"?

 

A real human in such a circumstance will do two things:

 

1.  Get away from the danger.

 

2.  Get to safety.

 

They aren't the same thing.  Believe me, number one is the first priority.

 

As an aside, all computer programs are formulaic, by their very nature, aren't they? 

 

Computer languages could be described as formulas for arranging all those zeroes and ones in a logical and pleasing manner.  Programs could be described similarly.

 

Human behavior is also formulaic, as you insinuate, or we wouldn't have the sciences of psychology and sociology to bore us in school. 

 

But, you don't need a degree in either science for this.  Common sense tells us that no one in a panic would run directly into the face of the perceived danger which has them panicking in the first place.  At least, they wouldn't as long as there was a better option.  Maybe something that didn't involve certain death.

 

It doesn't seem like a hard case to make, really.  People do, quite predictably, run away from danger, not toward it.  Someone needs to tell the zeroes and ones that.

[David Fair]

The routing problem has existed since January.

 

It has had ebbs and flows but in various releases but remains a problem.

[David Fair]

Actually surrendering is often the best choice to "Get away from the danger".

 

During the ACW troops would drop their weapons, wave a white piece of cloth, and run for the safety of the enemy lines.

 

In UGG the problem is that units rout in illogical directions, often routing through enemy units, reform behind enemy lines, and start fighting again.

[Jethro]

Actually surrendering is often the best choice to "Get away from the danger".

 

During the ACW troops would drop their weapons, wave a white piece of cloth, and run for the safety of the enemy lines.

 

In UGG the problem is that units rout in illogical directions, often routing through enemy units, reform behind enemy lines, and start fighting again.

 

I couldn't agree more.  It seems the program is all carrot and no stick.  It should, in fact, be a tad heavy on the stick and light on carrots.  Like real life, ya know? 

 

By that, I mean that during routs and retreats, the AI ignores obvious danger to seek safety.  It sees only the carrot and not the stick. 

 

And, somehow, the program logic allows units to rout through a cohesive wall of men standing shoulder to shoulder shooting at them.

 

These things seem like programming oversights, almost, since they're so intrinsic to the logic of the battlefield.  

 

I'm kinda wondering how you program this without some sort of danger awareness/avoidance routine...  I'm a bit baffled by it.

[Jethro]

Discussing this, I can't help but think of another game I play a lot, the Command Ops series by Panther/Matrix.

 

It's operational scale and the WWII time period.  But, it has the best AI I've ever seen - bar none.  In it, routs, retreats, and surrenders all seem perfectly natural and expected (or, at least, within the realm of possibility) and flow quite smoothly in the overall chain of events.

 

In a perfect world, I would take UGG's gorgeous topography and outstanding movement system and CO's AI and seamless, days-long battles and create a hybrid.

 

With UGG, when it behaves according to logic, the flow of battle and game play are outstanding and very immersive.  But, when it fails, it does so glaringly.  But, that's probably only because there is so much goodness here to illuminate the flaws.

[WesleyBarras]

Actually surrendering is often the best choice to "Get away from the danger".

 

During the ACW troops would drop their weapons, wave a white piece of cloth, and run for the safety of the enemy lines.

 

In UGG the problem is that units rout in illogical directions, often routing through enemy units, reform behind enemy lines, and start fighting again.

Yes this needs to be fixed. Far too often I route an enemy and they run to the back of my lines. 5 minutes later, they recharge and attack my cannons or hit me from behind. I then have to divert units from the actively attacking force to deal with them. This happens again and again.