Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

[IMPORTANT] Artillery discussion


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

It shouldn't take longer then a week. Send Steam a letter describing the problem and you will be back in the game in no time. Since your insights are so valuable it would be a shame Steam problem to prevent you finetuning the artillery of the game. You posted so much on the topic! Don't back out now please, this is the last patch where game can be directly influencey by you to represent a closer resemblance of historical realities.

Edited by Hister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincolns Mullet,

Absolutely agree that the game should be fun. But shouldn't a game on Napoleonic warfare be different from the ACW?

We really aren't talking about the numbers to tune the game to the numbers.

We consider numbers to make the game play differently in the ACW than other time periods. The numbers simply establish boundary conditions to consider. Perhaps artillery that is 5X too powerful does not cross the boundary conditions in your perspective. But, in my mind this result transcends the demarcation line between the sublime and the ridiculous. But that's just my opinion.

Bottom line - we are trying to educate ourselves to understand the nuances of history so that we don't end up with homogenized wargames that are too generic to represent the difference in warfare over the ages.

Knights are great. So are cannons. But the ACW was an infantry war. Styling an ACW game with dominant artillery and cavalry that performs not at all like the ACW may be fun - but not really representative of the ACW.

In my mind the real goal is balancing history and game to derive the fun.

It's great that you enjoy UGG as is.

Personally if I'm going to invest my time in an ACW game I'd prefer to see it look a bit more like the ACW.

Currently, IMO the game is styled as more fitting to the wars of Frederick the Great - powerful cavalry and slow artillery. In Frederick's time the idea of skirmishing had not really evolved to the extent it was employed during the ACW. These are fundamental differences that impacted the tactics.

If the UGG team changed the battlefield map to Lobositz and dressed the guys in tricorne hats we'd be good to go.

We simply have different tolerances for where to draw the line on the history and call it fun.

When I play an ACW game I expect that my knowledge of the ACW should be somewhat applicable to playing the game well. For me this is the definition of a "fun" history-based game. I'm not looking for a numbers game or numerical precision - but when 8 of the top 12 units in KIA are artillery batteries - the game has strayed too far from the historical record to use knowledge of the ACW in the tactics of the game.

When the game deviations from history are so large that the game doesn't fit the historical record then the game is "less fun" because it is more fantasy than reality.

But we all have different definitions and thresholds for "fun".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hister my friend - thanks for the compliment - but the entire community has the ability to test the artillery and post results. Community feedback will be much more effective than my individual testing/response.

I've simply outlined the ACW historical record.

Nick and the team are highly competent at examining the game results. They understand where the artillery stacks up in the combined arms results.

Bottom line - this is not really about the historical record or my participation in testing.

Tuning artillery in the game is simply a design preference and game balancing issue.

The most effective way to get the artillery tuned more in the direction of the historical record is for the community to post their preferences. If players want UGG to be an ACW infantry-dominated game the UGG team is highly responsive to community input.

Note that many players complain that artillery is "useless" when it is not anachronistically too lethal. But the morale/condition effects could be implemented a bit differently to make the artillery both "useful" and more historically accurate. Note that Gibbon's "Artillerist Manual 1861" states, "the effects of artillery are more moral than physical" and the ordnance reports and medical records confirm this truth.

My recollection is that the design team's Husserl stated something like the design team didn't want the artillery to "crash the morale of the infantry". Yet historically, artillery's most critical role during the ACW was to be the final line of defense where a shattered army could find refuge knowing that artillery could "crash the morale" of a victorious enemy. This is precisely the pattern during the ACW and is demonstrated at Malvern Hill, Shiloh, Second Mananssas, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, etc... where shattered armies deployed behind a line of guns and lived to fight another day.

I've devoted the last 18 months to the historical record to influence game balance. There is not much more to contribute on the historical front. The game is completed.

If the community wants the artillery to be tuned in the direction of the historical record then stand up and say so.

Please note:

It will be interesting to see how the UGG team deals with artillery at Antietam. The Union had a vast artillery advantage at that battle - the Antietam artillery will need to be tuned differently than UGG artillery - or the Union infantry is really going to suck.

History has a way of inserting itself into game design. My hunch is that the design team is going to question why their artillery implementation in an Antietam game needs to be substantially different from UGG.

But, I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanx for detailed answer. I am always for a historical game which translates historical combat situations as close as possible into the game while also making sure game's playing doesn't become a chore.

It's a fine balance that is hard to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David, I commend your deep research and integrity to the history of the ACW.  I love history and feel like I know quite a bit about a lot of subjects, but its times when I read posts like yours and realize I'm a tadpole in an ocean of avid historians.

 

Games like UGG need your expertise, and the community is better for it (and, hopefully, the game developers who listen to everyone's input).

 

First of all, I want to say that I posted my comments without playing the game to great lengths.  I only had a handful of games under my belt and that is never enough to get a definitive answer on game balance issues.  The artillery did have very high kill counts, but it also didn't diminish my enjoyment of the game.

 

My point is that ultimately, the Prime Directive of any game developer is to make money.  Unfortunately, if that means skewing an ACW game towards something unrealistic, then that's the developers decision.  That typically means alienating avid historians (considered a niche audience in the gaming industry) in order to attract greater "casual" gamers.  I can't speak on behalf of Nick or what he intended when making UGG but, in my opinion, he strikes a perfect balance between fun and history.  Its very difficult to do.  When the old Close Combat games came out, there were a lot of historical inaccuracies that the community raged over and produced a whole lot of mods to "fix".  But CC was revolutionary at the time.  It did what UGG is doing: making a fun, historical game accessible to a general audience.  Everyone's term of "historically accurate" only goes so far as their knowledge of that history.  A casual gamer might only know that artillery is overpowered, and know nothing about their historical usage and effects on combat during ACW.  They're trying to play a game, and if they aren't having fun, the historical elements don't matter.

 

I've been in the game industry and worked on pseudo-historical games enough to know that history oftentimes takes a backseat to gameplay for the sake of making more $$.  It sucks, but its reality.  Look at the Total War series.  If any historical game could be 100% historically accurate AND fun, they'd hit the golden ticket.  All ACW historians would rejoice, and all casual gamers who don't know much about the war will buy the game as well because they heard it was really fun.

 

In your case (and many others), the fun of the gameplay IS the exacting historical details.  I completely get that.  In the case of the overpowered artillery, that's an easy fix.  That's tweaking the numbers.  I've gratefully been added to the focus testing team and been happily providing reams of feedback and details (on gameplay) to help make UGG the best game it can be.  I don't think I'm at liberty to discuss the details of those tests, but an issue with artillery is a relatively easy fix (which Nick has publicly stated is addressing).

 

My question is...if artillery is balanced correctly and feels historically appropriate, is that the only major issue you have with the game at the moment?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is...if artillery is balanced correctly and feels historically appropriate, is that the only major issue you have with the game at the moment?

 

You are right. No, that's not the major issue.

 

(that's not the place for it but imo the issues are :

  • weird melees, (especially when they last forever.)
  • routing enemy reforming behind one's line and screwing all your defence,
  • units that should have surendered (melee 1v5 i.e.))
Edited by Grognard_JC
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincolns Mullett,

Great to hear you are enjoying the game.

As I've said repeatedly to Nick and his team - forge ahead and release the product. As a Biz Dev executive there are many times I've had to sing "Don't Worry be Crappy" at product release.

I'm all for revenue optimization because it is the only path to new and better games in the future; and I'm a believer in the "golden ticket" for game design. The ACW enthusiast community in the U.S. is very large - but to an unfortunate extent they've been driven out of the game market due to poor game design. The balance between game and history remains somewhat elusive.

But customer feedback helps guide product evolution.

Please note that my posts are focused on history - not Nick's game.

If the community would like to see more precision in games then they should speak up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some of us have been on the focused testing team for more than 18 months.

There have been a long list of items that have been discussed over those 18 months.

Many of the problems have been addressed.

Some have not.

Some of these issues have driven testers originally in the testing community in other directions.

Bottom line - you can't make everyone happy all of the time.

Rather than have me reiterate what is in writing on this forum and summarize what we've been discussed over those months why don't you do your own research?

There is a long list of items that are known problems including melee, routing issues, surrender, artillery sighting, etc...

Nick has asked for time to address those issues and we have respected his request.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My goal is regarding artillery is simply ACW education. When topics are presented as "historically accurate" I'm having fun verifying that these statements align with fact. If they can add to the game experience that is icing on the cake.

Abstractions are great - but introducing light sabers, armored cavalry, or other "fantasy" factors should be identified and kept to a minimum when the game is represented as a "historically accurate" presentation.

When critical factors are out of line by half an order of magnitude it is reasonable to present and discuss the details.

To put this in perspective if you had a WWII air combat game you might include the spitfire. The spitfire had an top speed of about 250 miles per hour. Now let's multiply that number times 5. We now have an propeller driven aircraft flying at 1,250 MPH (roughly mach 2).

Kinda messes with game balance don't you think?

I'm more of let's examine things and get them within a reasonable ballpark. I'm not really interested in futzing around to derive "perfect" numbers. Play should impact results - and the numbers will vary. But you shouldn't be getting an ACW artillery battery with the firepower of an ACW brigade.

There seems to be a educational void regarding black powder artillery. In game terms this cascades into the balance of the other combat arms.

Let's take your Total War example. The artillery implementation was so flawed in those games that my recollection was that artillery was banned from competitive matches.

PS - I take exception to your stating that for me "fun is the exacting historical details."

Exacting historical details would make a horrific game.

You've completely missed the point of this entire topic - which began as a historical discussion of artillery.

History is a reasonable guide for what should/should not be in a historical game.

The details I've provided are primarily submitted as additional information for Nick and his team. The UGG team presents itself (and its product) as committed to history - so I've offered to help sift history from mythology. Nick can choose to do whatever he likes with the historical record in his games.

My theory is that better educated historical game designers make better historical games.

But from your wealth of experience you may have a different perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding artillery and line of sight and being able to fire at an enemy target, i would like to see each battery when unlimbered be either red or green in color at the base.  green means you can fire, red means you are blocked and can't fire.

 

i have also noticed that when i click on an artillery unit it sometimes shows 100% reload, yet the unit has already fired.  shouldn't that be reduced to 0% reload upon firing?

 

for playability reasons, i'm comfortable with each battery being a specific type of tube, i.e., napoleon, parrot, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...