What would regiments/detachments be for?

[MikeK]

For ACW and Napoleonic war on the tabletop we do love our regiments and I'm no exception, but when the ambition is to reflect a battle, or even a substantial part of a large battle, I've been convinced that the maneuver and combat elements the Corps commander works with are divisions and their constituent components, which, depending on the terminology used by a particular army, are units of roughly 1000-3000 men variously called brigades, regiments, or demi-brigades and composed of smaller units usually called battalions or regiments this is the ACW so I'll use the terms brigade and regiment). 

 

How the brigade commander handles his regiments is interesting and important, but is below the scope of the army commander's decision-making and control. The disposition of the brigades is usually left to the division commanders under the guidance of their corps commander, and the formation and configuration of the regiments of the brigades is the responsibility of the brigade commander with guidance from division. From the army perspective, we assume each brigade and regiment organizes and forms up as the commanding officer and his superior on the spot considers advisable.  

 

Granular unit management of separate brigade sub-units would be burdensome for the player and for the AI as well as unrepresentative of the role the player occupies in the simulation. It can be argued that brigades should have some flexibility in the width of their front - something which SMG certainly offered, and a considerable amount of time in that game was spent playing with brigade formations. Assuming the battle line logjam problem in UGG can be resolved, what is the net benefit of both sides fiddling with their brigade formations when they should be in command of the battle? It would place another substantial burden on the AI and on each player. Not fun, but if the other side is doing, I best counter it myself. Been down that road.  

 

In UGG, the morale/fire mechanics mean you don't need a continuous line to prevent an enemy brigade from slipping through the line. Converging fire will do the trick, and stretching or compressing frontage on the map seems unnecessary. Combat calculations are also simpler and therefore faster and more consistent if the math does not need to be adjusted for elastic formations.  

 

There are already a lot of units on the map - what are the net benefits of proliferation? 

 

Regiments didn't run around operating independently unless detached for a purpose (just as companies or smaller parties were detailed for particular tasks). The vast majority of these tasks are not relevant to the game because they were at too minor a level or relate to the non-combat side of operations, including logistics. There are VPs, but no camp, supply train, or depot to capture or ravage. Cleaner that way. And if you want something done, you send one or more brigades to do it.  

 

What other tactical/strategic tasks would be worth the trouble and clutter?

 

We already have on the map some skirmish and scout units that were significant in the skirmishing on the first day, and in the game are significant in their nuisance value as commandos behind enemy lines against artillery. Do we get value from more commandos, and the counter of some troops detached to protect the artillery?  Does having a lot of small units for instant scouting/LOS improve the game or seem more like modern warfare?

 

Regiments might be detached for the purpose of blocking a defile or as a garrison for a defensive position, but would that amount to more than either falling back as nuisance skirmishers or staying in place long enough to serve as a small speed bump for an advancing brigade.  

 

Game-wise, with single-target shooting mechanics a regiment might act as a bullet sponge to soak up fire otherwise directed at brigades behind it - useful for the shielded brigade, but very gamey. 

 

I don't claim to have thought everything through, but so far what I come up with does not seem promising for players or good use of resources compared with alternatives.

 

I'd like to hear the positive perspective.

 

 

[David Fair]

Great summary of why Phase 1 is problematic.  Phase 1 tosses the brigade-level game design out the window in favor of an arcade game experience.  How fast you click matters in Phase 1.

 

The game is designed at the brigade level for all but the fictional cavalry videttes/skirmishers/commandos that have the advantage of being broken into 5 units where they can flank the CSA infantry divisions.  

 

Buford's cavalry operated as two brigades historically.  

By breaking these brigades into 5 units it exploits the games design and limitation in a purely fictional implementation.

 

Phase 1 is very gamey with smaller, quicker, and more numerous cavalry units fighting larger CSA infantry brigades to a standstill or routing the CSA brigades before the Union I Corp infantry arrives.

 

I'm at the point where I dislike Phase 1 so intensely that:

As the CSA I just put everyone in heavy cover, put the units on "hold", set the artillery to "canister" and go get a cup of coffee while the game plays itself.

As the Union I put Devin's Videtts on Oak Hill, Gamble's Videttes on one of the Southern Hills, and keep the skirmishers in a line on McPherson's Ridge in front the CSA divisions.  When I Corps arrives they can fight on Seminary Ridge.

 

I'd like to see UGG cavalry as an option - turn it on or off.  

Alternatively, I'd like a historical setting where the cavalry is correctly deployed in two cavalry brigades.

 

The fictional performance of cavalry units is very annoying to an otherwise interesting and fun game.

 

I can accept that the game doesn't have East Cavalry Field and enjoy the experience.

 

But moving the East Cavalry Field battle onto the Gettysburg map where they fight with infantry division is anachronistic and silly for the ACW.

 

IMO it undermines the game and is not internally consistent with the game design.  

For example, why are the cavalry batteries the most powerful artillery unit in the game?

Every other artillery unit is a battery - except the cavalry's battery which is a massed brigade of 16 or 20 guns with the footprint of a single battery. 

[N.C.rebel]

David please tell you me your a tester on this game and they recieve your feedback lol

[David Fair]

N.C.rebel,

I am a tester since January.  

They receive my feedback - which has been consistent over the last 8 months.

 

Keep in mind - I'm only one perspective.

 

Many people like the things that degrade the game experience for me.

 

Historical accuracy is not a first priority - gamers really don't care much about history.

There is a tremendous amount of complaining that the cavalry aren't powerful enough, the artillery don' do enough damage....

[N.C.rebel]

Well that's disappointing to hear you need to give them a direct link to the historical records so they can understand the true roles of cavalry. I'm all for accuracy and historical as possible but that won't happen oh well still love and support the game.

[Edgy]

Well that's disappointing to hear you need to give them a direct link to the historical records so they can understand the true roles of cavalry. I'm all for accuracy and historical as possible but that won't happen oh well still love and support the game.

 

Gamble's vedettes were responsible for making the brigades of Archer & Davis form into battle line prematurely, but this was more to do with ANV officers not knowing what or who they faced, than anything those vedettes actually did. It's clear to me that neither vedettes nor skirmishers should be going toe to toe with Infantry brigades, let alone having them capturing VP locations, it really is ridiculous from an historical point of view. Having them there to slow the enemy down however, makes perfect sense, because that was their exact role on July the first.

[David Fair]

N.C.Rebel,

 

I've tried my honest best.  

Confronting people with primary evidence - results in disagreements about the definition of "historical accuracy", the underlying data, and how the data is interpreted.  

 

While these are valid concerns in data science throwing primary data out the window in favor of "that's not what I believe" is an un-intellectual and un-intelligent approach to history.  

 

The mantra is an information vacuum is preferable to primary data.

 

I'm an analyst and big data geek.  My focus has primarily on statistical studies to identify correlates - science not necessarily understood or embraced in the ACW game community.

 

Note that some people have suggested that the data from the AoP hospital data is fabricated.

That the AARs are wrong.

That they don't agree with military professionals (as if they have higher knowledge/experience to disagree).

That the information from Ft. Dix and the Aberdeen proving ground is somehow flawed - and they know better (which is weird given the military has the guns and run scientific tests).

The list goes on and it's long, long, list.

 

Bottom line alot of people claim to "know" the Civil War - but there is alot deeply entrenched "faith-based" knowledge.

 

Part of the problem for historians is that people who love and want more historical accuracy in a game - settle for less.  

Note your final 8 words in your post.

 

The ACW is religion - and confronting people with data as primary facts is not very welcome.

 

My conclusion - the world is flat.  Any information disproving entrenched assumption is, by definition, wrong.

 

"Thou shalt not understand" - is the eleventh commandment.

 

Great to have this game - but I do wish the game design could hold a course a little tighter to the history.

[David Fair]

Edgy,

 

Also, Heth's orders were specifically to avoid bringing on an engagement - which also contributed significantly to the delay as he probed the Union cavalry positions with skirmishers.  Additionally, Heth had been warned that there were Union infantry in Gettysburg - which explains his caution.

 

Had Heth realized that he was facing cavalry, and had them outnumbered 3 to 1, the battle for McPherson's Ridge would have been short, sharp, and very much in favor of the CSA.  

 

Historically Heth didn't call Buford's bluff.

 

Gettysburg games often start after the arrival of Union I Corps because it is impossible to replicate Buford's ruse.  

 

UGG took a different approach by trying to replicate the delays by inventing "Vidette Units" and beefing up a cavalry picket line of two brigades into three skirmishers units which are able to stand up to, and usually defeat, the CSA infantry brigades that outnumber them.

 

Ridiculous - apropos word selection Edgy.

[Jethro]

N.C.Rebel,

 

I've tried my honest best.  

Confronting people with primary evidence - results in disagreements about the definition of "historical accuracy", the underlying data, and how the data is interpreted.  

 

While these are valid concerns in data science throwing primary data out the window in favor of "that's not what I believe" is an un-intellectual and un-intelligent approach to history.  

 

The mantra is an information vacuum is preferable to primary data.

 

I'm an analyst and big data geek.  My focus has primarily on statistical studies to identify correlates - science not necessarily understood or embraced in the ACW game community.

 

Note that some people have suggested that the data from the AoP hospital data is fabricated.

That the AARs are wrong.

That they don't agree with military professionals (as if they have higher knowledge/experience to disagree).

That the information from Ft. Dix and the Aberdeen proving ground is somehow flawed - and they know better (which is weird given the military has the guns and run scientific tests).

The list goes on and it's long, long, list.

 

Bottom line alot of people claim to "know" the Civil War - but there is alot deeply entrenched "faith-based" knowledge.

 

Part of the problem for historians is that people who love and want more historical accuracy in a game - settle for less.  

Note your final 8 words in your post.

 

The ACW is religion - and confronting people with data as primary facts is not very welcome.

 

My conclusion - the world is flat.  Any information disproving entrenched assumption is, by definition, wrong.

 

"Thou shalt not understand" - is the eleventh commandment.

 

Great to have this game - but I do wish the game design could hold a course a little tighter to the history.

 

At the risk of being banned and/or flamed, I feel compelled to tell things the way I see them.  After all, I'm a paying customer.  If I never play this game, again, my $10 bought me the right to tell this forum why, at least. 

 

David, what you wrote here confirms my suspicions about how this game is being developed.

 

I guess it's easier, and more cost effective, to rewrite history than it is to rewrite code. 

 

It's one thing to lack understanding and make mistakes.  Mistakes can, usually, be corrected.  However, it's something else, entirely, to imagine to have some sort of ill-defined innate expertise (which could certainly be characterized as "faith-based") that flies in the face of well-established fact, common sense and reason.

 

Facts and analysis are my religion.  I place my faith there.

 

And the facts indicate two likely possibilities:

 

Either the early development of this game was critically flawed and the developers are now acutely aware of that fact.  But, it's way too late to change things.  So, they're trying to make the history match their programming, as best they can, in numerous ways.  (Occam would choose this as the most likely explanation.  The razor always knows...)

 

Or it's as simple to explain as creationism and intelligent design - intentional disregard of self-evident truths which run counter to strongly held personal beliefs.  (Doesn't sound like a programmer's mentality.  But, who knows?  It takes a lot of idiots in a lot of villages to make a whole world.)

 

There is so much promise here.  So much is so right.  The way it appears, though, intransigence will prevent certain glaring problems from ever being solved.  In fact, I'd bet good money on it.  After all, why fix a problem that doesn't exist, right?  The problem is all those erroneous records, military experts and history professors. 

 

The experts are all wrong. 

 

The devs know better.

 

And that's not gonna change.

 

How do you fix that?

[David Fair]

Jethro,

 

In UGGs defense it has a great AI and is a step in game evolution.

I agree that many of these issues could be addressed - perhaps an "UGG 2" if they make enough money with UGG? 

 

 

 "Fix" is a curious word choice:

 

Occam is my hypothesis...

 

Gamers want a "fun game" and game designers feed their families based on the volume they sell.

It's just economics.  

Where there has been intentional disregard of truth in UGG - it is in favor of satisfying the masses (cavalry and artillery are primary examples).

 

As a result of gamer input there is an organic quality to UGG.  

For example - when players complained about the number of batteries they had to micromanage the CSA cavalry artillery brigade was combined into a single unit - making it the most powerful artillery formation in the game.

This is an internal inconsistency driven by the masses.

Bottom line - the UGG design is a hybrid due to design hyper responsiveness to the masses.

 

 

Historian and gamer tension:

 

Gettysburg is one of the most studied battles in history.

My hunch is the design team was confident they have a solid knowledge base when they started off on the implementation.

What they didn't anticipate was the level of much deeper knowledge and scrutiny they would encounter in their customer base.

 

The fact that the Union troops incorrectly hold their muskets on the left is an example of the minutia that folks know and notice.

Man - I can't even see that well plus I only play on "zoomed out".

 

Not everyone embraces fact and analysis as religion - we are the few, the proud, the history analytics geeks.

We are not representative of the game community.

Historians and the game community split - after the introduction of graphic cards.

 

There will be a re-convergence of these communities when game designers figure out that 50% of their potential customers aren't playing historical games because they aren't historically accurate.

 

I think of this re-convergence of the history community and the game community as a point of singularity.

 

 

Historical game design solution space:

 

Fog of War in game design is, in my opinion, critical for the point of singularity.

 

Meade thought the ANV was 95,000 strong for the Gettysburg Campaign.

The Union systemically overestimated CSA forces.

In UGG you know precisely how many men are in your units - and the units of the enemy.

There is no military truth in this.

 

UGG could have provided estimates on units and the gamers would have had no idea if infantry or artillery was too effective or not.

They would have had no way of knowing.

They'd play the game and be happy.

 

Because UGG does not embrace Fog of War the design team is bogged down in casualty details based on ACW religion.

The tension is reconcilable in the absence of Fog of War - IMO. 

 

Many in the game community don't give a jot about history - so satisfy them visually, hide the details, give them a challenging game, and they'll be happy.

 

This is how I'd fix it.

[Edgy]

At this point I think it would have been a much better idea to make a generic civil war game, not based on any real battle.

[David Fair]

True, but we would still have the tension between historical accuracy vs. arcade game.

 

The great thing is that by getting all of the information available from Gettysburg built into a game structure UGG would make a fantastic generic civil war game.

 

It's just - this is not the design philosophy.

[N.C.rebel]

David you think the mentality of the cavalry in this game is because the developers are European maybe? Assuming cav in the ACW is like Napoleon tactics

[David Fair]

N.C.rebel,

 

No idea - but I suspect it's simple economics - they want the game to sell well.

 

Perhaps they just believe this is the optimal answer.

 

Keep in mind they are getting mostly positive feedback in Steam - and Steam is their metric.

 

Note that in the Steam discussion titled, "Artillery Discussion" one of the most recent comments was, "oh - this is that kind of discussion".

 

Very low tolerance in the gamer community for history.

 

Honestly I just don't think they view the ACW history enthusiast community as a target market.

 

Keep in mind Nick is in Athens and much of the dev team is in the Ukraine - where they are likely thinking about more important issues.

[MikeK]

Given the tough circumstances Ukrainians have faced for the past - well, pretty much for however many years you wish to go - I expect they are able to remain calm and focused in circumstances that would see many of us in the peaceful West headed in for medication to settle our nerves. Salute and best wishes to them.

 

On the artillery issue, I don't think it is that history isn't fun, it's a matter of expectations.  One way to reset expectations is to explain (maybe in loading tips etc.)

- that the artillery is slow-firing,

- that casualties per artillery round fired in the ACW over time average from 1-5 depending on circumstances, causing useful attrition and morale loss that can help tip an infantry contest but a single battery's fire is rarely dramatic in effect,

- that artillery's strength and value lies in concentration of fire - from an artillery battalion, not just a mere battery.

 

A battalion of artillery in the game always makes an impression on the enemy and can repulse a brigade on its own. Indeed, artillerist E.P. Alexander explained how in Confederate service battalion-level organization and direction of artillery was found much superior in the field to piecemeal assignment of batteries to brigades. Just as players learn to think about converging fire from several brigades on an enemy unit, they can learn to think about concentrating artillery fire - which is fun to plan and execute. 

 

(It reminds me of low-information WW2 game players complaining that handheld AT weaposn don't perform more like modern ATGMs (and that Tigers are OP). 

[David Fair]

Actually my hypothesis is that it's a matter of presentation.  Staying true to history would both improve the game and the visual appeal.

 

Both generals at Gettysburg faced difficult decision.

 

One of the biggest blunders at Gettysburg - and least talked about - was Lee's decision to hold all of Anderson's Division & Thomas's Brigade of Pender's Division in reserve on Day 1.  These troops could have been used to attack Cemetery Hill or Culp's Hill on Day 1.

 

Had Lee committed his reserves in the drive for Seminary Ridge he would have both reduced his casualty count on Pender's Division by routing the exhausted I Corps much sooner.  Lee insisted he needed a reserve, "...in case of a disaster..."  This is a curious notion - given that it was after 4:30 pm, with limited time to continue the action, and Lee had Longstreet's entire I Corps marching toward Gettysburg.

 

My hunch is if you actually saw an ACW battle it would be visually captivating - I'm not taking anything away from the reenactors - but...

 

Ammunition caisson blowing up, artillery firing, infantry moving in lines then reduced to chaos.  

 

I've been rereading Pfanz 3 volume series on the day by day action at Gettysburg.

His descriptions coupled with first hand accounts paint a highly fluid, confusing, horrific, and sometime humorous account of the battle.

 

My 2 cents is that if more of the action was visually built into games you could satisfy the game community and the history community.

Unfortunately - you can't really accomplish this on a tablet.

[Jethro]

From the Steam store page:

 

"Ultimate General: Gettysburg is a Tactical Battle Simulator (sort of) that allows you to lead thousands of soldiers in the famous Battle of Gettysburg as commander of either the Union or Confederate army. The game will feature the most accurately created map, complex morale, innovative control mechanics and smart AI."

 

"In Ultimate General: Gettysburg, you will realize that army units are not “machines” that blindly follow orders, but will need to conserve strength and courage for decisive battle actions. Every basic tactical element that is expected for a strategy game is incorporated into gameplay. (you mean basic stuff like surrenders, dismounting cavalry, limbering artillery and building entrenchments?) Most importantly, morale is affected by many factors including flank or rear attacks, casualties, volley shocks, artillery fire and fatigue."

 

"Ultimate General: Gettysburg includes the full order of battle for the Union Army of the Potomac and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. Unit sizes will range from the small artillery batteries to vast infantry brigades with cavalry and skirmishers in between. All brigades have troop numbers and differing competencies based on historical facts. Additionally, all artillery battery numbers and types are correctly simulated. (not so much) Lastly, major generals and officers actively participate in the battlefield to organize and support the armies and will also appear in after action battle reports to help you monitor battle progress."

 

I was sold an accurate historical simulation of Gettysburg.  I have no idea what I actually bought, though.  Does anyone?

[David Fair]

Jethro,

I'm conflicted by your post - is the glass half full or half empty?

 

UGG is a step in the right direction toward more historically accurate games.  

The design team is devoted to their product and the community.

I don't agree with some of their implementation, perspectives, or decisions; but, I do enthusiastically support their effort.

 

My perspective is that by supporting the evolution we can hope that a eventually a game designer understands the value in targeting the point of singularity.

My definition of singularity is a marketing concept where gamers will play a historically accurate game that historians embrace as accurate enough to play and be interesting.

From a business perspective singularity is an important target.

This is primarily a maturation issue for the game market.

The marketing approach today is chuck it in Steam as see what happens with the game community.

 

Note - singularity is not necessarily a "battlefield simulator" - but, singularity will be a big step in that direction.

 

The UGG design is hyper responsive to customer complaints and history plays a muted and distant second fiddle.

The design vision seems to be, "whatever most people want".  I'm not a fan of software "design by squeaky wheel".  

 

Your posts demonstrate you've studied Gettysburg.  

You've seen the introductory videos - and possibly watched the YouTube posting.

Honestly for $10 it seems like you have what you paid for - if your expectations are reasonable.

 

When I paid to see the move Gettysburg or Lincoln did I expect historical accuracy?  Honestly, not really - but I did understand what I bought.

 

 

UGG is a hybrid RTS/arcade brigade-level game presenting Gettysburg.  It's contribution is a solid AI targeted at tablets.

 

The tablet as a target platform required design choices entailed tradeoffs.

 

You've highlighted key marketing words - and paid $10 for the early release.  

Did you get your entertainment value from the $10?

 

IMO it is not intellectually honest to believe you can buy any battlefield simulator for $10.  You can't.

 

After looking at other game titles that use the term "battlefield simulator" it's pretty clear the game design community has no idea what they are talking about when they use this term.  At some point they saw a DARPA RFP and hijacked the words. "Battlefield Simulator" is just the words in the marketing portfolio in the game community.

 

UGG is a game and any game claiming to be "an accurate historical simulation of Gettysburg" isn't.

As historians - despite all we know - we don't know enough to guarantee  "an accurate historical simulation of Gettysburg."

 

 

Highlighted Marketing Text:

 

"Every basic tactical element that is expected..." - What is a basic tactical element?  Whose expectations?

 

"...competencies based on historical fact..." - How closely based?  When does something deviate to the point it is no longer "based on"?

 

"Additionally, all artillery battery numbers and types are correctly simulated." - You have 'em there.

 

 

Not sure this answers the question about what you bought - but it is a first cut at an response.

[Jethro]

The glass is damned near empty, amigo.  And I'm not thirsty for what little it contains.

 

I haven't studied Gettysburg or the war all that much, actually. 

 

I do know a great deal about shifty salesmen, though, and misrepresenting a product.

 

The question about what I bought was rhetorical,  The facts speak for themselves..

 

I did notice, however, that you completely ignored the most salient point made in my post. 

 

The first sentence in the first paragraph of the UGG store page goes like this:

 

"Ultimate General: Gettysburg is a Tactical Battle Simulator that allows you to lead thousands of soldiers in the famous Battle of Gettysburg as commander of either the Union or Confederate army."

 

Now, I ask you, person to person.  What is a tactical battle simulator?

 

Kinda of a self-defining term, isn't it? 

 

Furthermore, I don't see the word "arcade" or "hybrid" anywhere in that sales copy.  If arcade hybrid game was what I was sold, why isn't that what I was told?

 

In Texas, that's called a lie.  I'm not sure what it's called anywhere else.  But, that's ok.  I'm not from anywhere else. 

 

I live in the Seattle area now, though.  I'm guessing these "progressive" types here (you know, the ones with soap allergies who live on meth and granola) can tell me why the sales pitch isn't deceptive (if I can stand the smell of patchouli long enough to listen to their bullshit, that is).  But, I don't really see that happening.

 

Like I said, in Texas, the sales pitch on the store page is fiction, plain and simple.  I mean, how many fabrications in a sales pitch does it take to make it deceptive in nature?  The answer, for honest people, is that even one falsehood is unforgivable.  We don't like being jerked around.  That's why we don't do it to others.

 

As for the rest, I can only assume a "tactical element" is an element of tactics, since that's what it says and since the OOB is bragged about elsewhere in the text.  Obviously, many basic tactical elements are absent from this game and others are wildly inaccurate and/or poorly implemented. 

 

Surrender, entrenchments and dismounted cavalry are first grade stuff for even a basic "tactical battle simulator".  I don't think that's a point that needs a great deal of arguing.  It's more of a a fact which can't be refuted in any real or meaningful way.

 

I guess I'm just a crusty old man.  But, after a lifetime of being sold one thing and getting something else (or nothing, at all), a person gets jaded and, well, pissed off, for lack of a better phrase.  Obviously, it's not the $10 I care about.  I can't even get a decent sandwich for $10.  But, the wasted time, on the other hand, matters to me...  and the deception. 

 

That's a problem for me.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece here.  I can't get back the time I've wasted on this arcade game hybrid thing - or whatever it is.  But, I can cut my losses, now, by not wasting any more on it.  Believe me when I tell you - I have better things to do. 

 

If you value your time, David, I'd advise you to do the same.

 

P.S. I think I forgot to thank you for confirming my worst suspicions.  If you've spent months telling the developers the perfectly obvious, all to no avail, why would anything change, ever, and how long can you wait for that?  I might have wasted months of my own doing the same thing you have.  I sincerely appreciate that.

 

If time was money (it's actually far more valuable) what you're doing now is throwing good money after bad.  It's all going down the same hole, never to return. 

 

I'm cutting my losses, immediately, though.  Good luck with this fiasco.

[Jethro]

This is just for fun... 

 

Wanna play football with this guy?  Seriously....  it's so wrong.

 

[N.C.rebel]

Wow that's random lmao

[David Fair]

N.C.Rebel,

 

Which the football post of Jethro's perspective on UGG?

[N.C.rebel]

Yea that one lol

[David Fair]

It seems as frustrated as he was with the game it was no wonder he posted the random football video.

 

He had some valid points and honest frustrations with UGG.  I understand his pain.