Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Feedback for Ultimate General: Gettysburg v0.9+<<< (Update 15/10/2014)


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

Union vs Cunning, custom battle (afternoon Day 1 - forced off Seminary). I put my brigades/artillery on hold and waited. Several Confed brigades appeared on my left flank and waited, then the AI pushed Archer forward where for half the battle it exchanged volleys with two of my brigades and also took artillery fire, losing about 1/3rd of its men for no apparent reason.

Then something triggered with the AI which sent Brockenbrough charging at Bucktail, second from the end of my left, and Heth's Skirmishers at Baxter beside him, with Pettigrew advancing in support. Baxter soon routed and retreated, as did the skirmishers. Brockenbrough engaged Bucktail in a long melee during which strangely hardly any men died. Brock then formed a line within touching distance of Bucktail and the two then the rest of the battle exchanging rifle volleys with Bucktail by far getting the better of it. Pettigrew contented himself with occupying Codori's farm with his 2500 men taking long range potshots at Dilger's artillery, when he could have enfiladed Bucktail and pressed the attack on the Cemetery.

Davis advanced in the middle and began exchanging volleys with Paul, I got word that Rode had sent Confederate reinforcements, and the battle was over (this image from seconds before the end).

A no-click battle apart from the initial hold commands - the Cunning AI wasted a lot of time early on, then after it routed Baxter and had the opportunity to roll up my line it again reverted to doing nothing. I don't know if the Confederates had any armies on my right to assault Culps - I certainly didn't see anything come into view on that flank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same battle vs Determined. For the first half it followed almost exactly the same script as Cunning, advancing Archer but also Davis to long rifle range and exchanging volleys to little effect as the time ticked by. Then Brockenbrough and Heth's Skirmishers repeated their charge at Bucktail and Baxter, and Pettigrew advanced almost but not quite into rifle range of Baxter's exposed flank.

The skirmishers paused for a quick close range shot at Baxter before retreating and Baxter simply ignored them. Even though the skirmishers were right in their face Baxter did not target them or anyone else.

Finally Pettigrew opened fire on Baxter's flank and, combined with the melee going on next store at Bucktail that was too much for Baxter who immediately routed. This time Pettigrew went into charge mode, pursuing Baxter east and not letting them reform. Pettigrew caught Baxter and Dilger at the same time and forced a melee, then quickly changed its mind and turned south to charge Gamble's Videttes.

Meanwhile the melee between Brockenbrough and Bucktail raged on with hardly any attrition, and Archer and Davis continued to stand back sniping from long range. No-one appeared on my right flank to threaten Culp's.

Finding itself well to the south, Pettigrew advanced on Heckman's artillery (the AI really has a dislike for artillery) but couldn't sustain it and retreated, but kept rallying for repeated charges. Brockenbrough's charge finally failed with it breaking and routing while Bucktail held strong. Heth's skirmishers were active around Codori's farm, sniping (at artillery) then falling back, then decided to launch itself in a headlong charge against Coster's infantry at Cassalt farm. Needless to say, nothing came of this.

I received the warning of reinforcments about to attack my right flank. Brockenbrough then rallied and marched straight past the left edge of Bucktail taking significant rifle and canister fire on the way. I never found out where exactly he was headed as at that moment the battle ended. Not that different from Cunning I'm afraid - a little more aggressive perhaps but it was disjointed and pointless aggression mostly directed at artillery batteries.

The AI does not know how to break a line, flank a line or put pressure on the bend in a line. Its tactics seem to be different for each brigade as they certainly don't seem to work together with a single purpose in mind. I'm sorry but there's a lot of work to do yet before this part of the game will live up to its potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AI does not know how to break a line, flank a line or put pressure on the bend in a line. Its tactics seem to be different for each brigade as they certainly don't seem to work together with a single purpose in mind. I'm sorry but there's a lot of work to do yet before this part of the game will live up to its potential.

 

Your comment reminds me of how apt the conceptualization of maneuver warfare doctrine (German-derived in particular) in terms of hard and soft surfaces, pressure, pinning, gaps, traps  etc. can be when applied for battle evaluation and dynamics in the horse and musket period (scaled appropriately considering mobility and engagement distances). This might be applied to make more human-seeming AI decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As there's a limited number of maps, and a limited number of ways they could be played, my thinking (were I developing this game) would be to add a master layer over the top of the AI that has some pre-planned strategies to follow that are hard-coded by a human. For instance, a random choice between driving hard up the middle or faking right to attract enemy reserves then send its reserves left for the true flanking maneuver, or perhaps throwing everything it has into a right flank - stuff like that.

Rather than the AI trying to figure out what to do using a generic algorithm, it could use basic instructions of this nature that would look far more realistic and be far more of a challenge to the player to oppose. The actual implementation of the strategy (how vigorously it attacks, whether it decides it has strength to keep pushing or needs to rest and hold for a while etc) could be handled by the existing 9 types of AI.

Its not just proactive strategies that could be added like this, but reactive ones as well. For example, if the enemy has more than X forces in this area and has taken X hill or Y farm then its mounting a serious flanking operation, and the AI should respond by committing reserves and straightening its line where possible. It should also recognize when a salient bend has been exposed in the enemy line and know to commit reserves to attacking the vulnerable brigades from multiple angles to rout them.

I'd represent this in a flow-chart type of format - Corps I advances on location A. Corps 2 advances on location B. Are there enemy present at A? If Yes, defend, if No, has Corps 2 reached location B? If Yes, is Corp 2 engaged with the enemy - if Yes, advance to location C to support Corp 2's flank. If no, advance to location D. That kind of thing.

There's obviously bugs in the existing AI that need fixing - not going for objectives when they're open and not safe-guarding them when there's a rogue enemy brigade on the loose behind the lines, allowing one or more brigades to be distracted for the whole battle by skirmishers or sharpshooters, failure to use the hold command when its intent on defending, and lastly poor use of Generals. Those however won't fix the lack of strategic direction shown by the AI right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conclusion is this is a tactics game - not a strategy game.  

 

The strategy is direct line to VP's.  

 

In January it was suggested that the CSA have a couple of different strategies particularly on Day 1.

 

Specifically,

 

Strategy A:

CSA Ewell's Corps stay east of Gettysburg and move directly to Culp's Hill / Cemetery Hill to 1) hold the high ground and 2) take Union XI and I Corps in the rear.  

 

Strategy B:

Split Ewell's forces and half move to Culp's Hill / Cemetery Hill.

 

Strategy C:

Current implementation.

 

UGG's AI  really needs a strategic overlay or the game is simply too repetitive to remain interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from the N and NE, the natural approach would be to seek to control the crossroads and scout the town to see if it could be taken (who wouldn't grab a crossroads town on a hill if it was open?).  If posted in some strength, then cover the Union forces there and probe past on the east.  Occupy Benner's Hill and scout Culp's Hill and beyond carefully before plunging into all that uneven woodland that might contain any number of defending or advancing Union troops. 

 

Troops moving through real woods, not parks, would lose an increasing amount of coordination and cohesion (condition) coming out the other side - quickly recovered if not under fire or more heavily engaged. Wariness of ambushes is also a factor in movement speed. It was a routine phenomenon for small forces in woods, often along a road, to force their opponents to shake out into a line to probe forward to test the defenders, who might then retire and do it again.  

 

(I myself am routinely distracted by skirmisher harassment and wish I had some cavalry to chase them off.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Played the map 5 multiplayer against "Don't Escrow" last night (PST) . Both of us had many brigades stuck accepting no input at all so i can confirm that 0.92 still has this MP issue. I think in the end i had 4 or 5 left moving so was able to win by capturing the VP unopposed as all his units were stuck/hung/not responding.

 

I sent "bugreport" and screen shot as did he

 

Do you think you may have fixed it in this new hot fix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Played the map 5 multiplayer against "Don't Escrow" last night (PST) . Both of us had many brigades stuck accepting no input at all so i can confirm that 0.92 still has this MP issue. I think in the end i had 4 or 5 left moving so was able to win by capturing the VP unopposed as all his units were stuck/hung/not responding.

 

I sent "bugreport" and screen shot as did he

 

Do you think you may have fixed it in this new hot fix

Some latest fixes came now that we will test and apply asap with a hot fix. The new patch will have reduced probability for such bugs but they may happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My conclusion is this is a tactics game - not a strategy game.  

 

The strategy is direct line to VP's.  

 

In January it was suggested that the CSA have a couple of different strategies particularly on Day 1.

 

Specifically,

 

Strategy A:

CSA Ewell's Corps stay east of Gettysburg and move directly to Culp's Hill / Cemetery Hill to 1) hold the high ground and 2) take Union XI and I Corps in the rear.  

 

Strategy B:

Split Ewell's forces and half move to Culp's Hill / Cemetery Hill.

 

Strategy C:

Current implementation.

 

UGG's AI  really needs a strategic overlay or the game is simply too repetitive to remain interesting.

I don't mean to go off topic here....

 
@ David Fair.
 
I agree this is a purely a Tactical Game,
from the moment the Army of Northern Virginia arrived at Gettysburg, to the time of Lee's retreat on the 4th.
 
With Lee's, ANV withdrawal from Pennsylvania that part of the Souths Strategy Collapsed.  
 
I am confused here,Perhaps you could elaborate/clarify on what exactly you meant with the post above,
on what exactly the difference is Between 'Strategy n Tactics'.
I see the 2 words use interchangeably,to mean the same thing.
 
Perhaps I have it all backwards,
But from what I read they are 2 completely different operations within a Military context.
 
I believe this is an important point, because this is a Military gaming forum in Generality. 
******
 

Military tactics can be described as the science and art of organizing a military force, and the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle. Changes in philosophy and technology over time have been reflected in changes to military tactics. In current military thought, tactics are the lowest of three planning levels. The highest tier of planning is the strategy, which is about how force is translated into political objectives or, more specifically, how the means and ends of war are bridged together. An intermediate level, which converts strategy into tactics is the operational level that deals with formations of units. In common vernacular, "tactical" decisions are those made to achieve greatest immediate value and "strategic" decisions are those made to achieve the greatest overall value irrespective of immediate return.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tactics

 

**********

MILITARY STRATEGY AND TACTICS
Military strategy and tactics are essential to the conduct of warfare. Broadly stated, strategy is the planning, coordination, and general direction of military operations to meet overall political and military objectives. Tactics implement strategy by short-term decisions on the movement of troops and employment of weapons on the field of battle. The great military theorist Carl von Clausewitz put it another way: "Tactics is the art of using troops in battle; strategy is the art of using battles to win the war." Strategy and tactics, however, have been viewed differently in almost every era of history. The change in the meaning of these terms over time has been basically one of scope as the nature of war and society has changed and as technology has changed. Strategy, for example, literally means "the art of the general" (from the Greek strategos) and originally signified the purely military planning of a campaign.

http://www.molossia.org/milacademy/strategy.html

 

******

Essentially, strategy is the thinking aspect of planning a change, organizing something, or planning a war. Strategy lays out the goals that need to be accomplished and the ideas for achieving those goals. Strategy can be complex multi-layered plans for accomplishing objectives and may give consideration to tactics.
 
Tactics are the meat and bread of the strategy. They are the “doing” aspect that follows the planning. Tactics refer specifically to action. In the strategy phase of a plan, the thinkers decide how to achieve their goals. In other words they think about how people will act, i.e., tactics. They decide on what tactics will be employed to fulfill the strategy.
 
*******
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Essentially, strategy is the thinking aspect of planning a change, organizing something, or planning a war. Strategy lays out the goals that need to be accomplished and the ideas for achieving those goals. Strategy can be complex multi-layered plans for accomplishing objectives and may give consideration to tactics.

 

Tactics are the meat and bread of the strategy. They are the “doing” aspect that follows the planning. Tactics refer specifically to action. In the strategy phase of a plan, the thinkers decide how to achieve their goals. In other words they think about how people will act, i.e., tactics. They decide on what tactics will be employed to fulfill the strategy.

That's my understanding of these terms as well, and in this context UGG's AI is quite good with tactics but severely lacking with strategy. That said, there's a new update now so more testing to be done :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my understanding of these terms as well, and in this context UGG's AI is quite good with tactics but severely lacking with strategy. That said, there's a new update now so more testing to be done :)

Ok where would you put Operational Planning? 

 

I believe once the armies met at Gettysburg the Strategic Plans(Both Armies) was put on hold till the outcome could be assessed.

This is why Lee's, and the South's Eastern invasion Strategy Collapsed once a retreat was ordered on the 4 day.

Lee Failed to Put pressure on, and threaten Washington and/or Philadelphia with a decisive win in the North.

 The thinking was this would probably force Lincoln to the table to 'negotiate Independence n cessation of hostilities'.

 

Once the first shots were fired, the Battle was in the Operational Tactical Phase.

Strategy imo is the big Picture, whereas The Battle Of Gettysburg was in the

Tactical Planning or Operational Level which would advance their

overall Strategy with a win, or a disastrous result if a Loss occurred.

 

This is why I agreed with David Fair that this Game is a Tactical Game. imo....

 

""" Quote>

The intermediate level, which converts strategy into tactics is the operational level that deals with formations of units. 

In common vernacular, "tactical" decisions are those made to achieve greatest immediate value and "strategic" decisions are those 

made to achieve the greatest overall value irrespective of immediate return...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes obviously UGG has no elements of campaign strategy or planning involved, as its a game about a single battle. Yes in the context of the whole war or even a summer campaign, a single battle is tactical compared to the overall picture.

However even within a single battle - or single phase of the battle - there's the plan for what an army is trying to achieve (seize a hill, make the opponent commit its reserves, roll up a flank etc) and the methods by which it attempts to carry out that plan. The former can be described as strategy & the latter as tactics, or you can give them other labels if you wish as there's no point in arguing about semantics. Indeed the definition of strategy you used at the end of your post perfectly describes decisions to turn a flank (lots of initial marching in a direction where there's no objective target), or holding reserve forces back from the combat and either feeding them in piecemeal where needed or committing them en masse to stop a key enemy move. Both examples try to achieve the greatest overall value at the cost of immediate return.

My view is that UGG is very weak when it comes to strategy as it rarely seems to have a coherent battle plan. It seems to only react to what it sees in front of its nose much of the time, its attempts to capture objectives are often overly direct & hence easily defended unless it has overwhelming numbers, and it has little concept of how to deal with its flank being turned. Occasionally I've seen glimpses of it seeming to have a plan & carrying it out well, but these are few and far between. Note that I haven't yet tested 9.3, so its possible that improvements have been made for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not certain that any of this strategy vs. tactics discussion matters – but this is my perspective.

 

Background - I’ve worked in the DoD/IC complex fielding next generation technologies since 1987.  Over that time I’ve observed that in the military community vernacular the term “strategy” is primarily defined by context.  “Strategy” is often used in as roughly equivalent to the word “plan” – which may be the origin of confusion on the use of the term “strategy”.

 

All of this may be wrong and not useful – but here are some thoughts.

 

The starting point for this discussion should be 1861.  

Modern military doctrine is much more precisely defined than the context of the terms during the ACW.

Rather than delve into the nuances of 21st Century military definitions I'd prefer to discuss the term "strategy" in the context of the ACW.  Communications technology, remote controlled assets, and complexity pervade modern warfare.  

 

During the ACW telegraph, railroad, steamer, hot air balloon, and horse were the tools available for command and control.

Of these options at Gettysburg the primary command and control communication medium was the horse.

 

A practical definition is that “strategy” during the ACW was a hierarchical decision making process that flows from upper echelons to lower to ensure coordinated command and control. 

 

Command and control is the essence of military strategy – with the goal to gain and sustain an unfair advantage that leads to the destruction of the enemy’s will or resources to continue the fight.

 

At each level of the organization “strategies” are implemented to support, contribute to, and implement the decisions and priorities ("strategies") of higher tiers of the command structure.

 

 

“Strategy” in the context of the ACW & Gettysburg

 

Jeff Davis & Abraham Lincoln as CinC contrived war strategies.  A significant part of these strategies were carried out above the field level command.  For example foreign intervention was a key ingredient of the war strategy for both sides. 

For a tactical example of how this strategic goal was executed see the Trent Affair and the contortions this caused for both leaders, their subordinates, and the British.

 

The CinC’s also had operational strategy responsibilities that allocated resources to the war effort (leaders, men, horses, material). 

 

For the ACW this devolved into the Eastern Theater and the Western Theater for rather quickly.  The 1862 decision by Jeff Davis to commit the resources allocated to the defense of New Orleans to the battle of Shiloh lost New Orleans for the South and reduced the complexity of the operational strategy options for the duration of the war.  Specifically the CSA had one less critical front to defend.  Thus, New Orleans basically became a cash cow for Benjamin Butler and his brother to appropriate cotton and silver spoons for their personal fortunes.

 

Once grand strategy to prosecute the war had been defined and the resources had been allocated the CinC delegated much of the operational strategy to the Army  Commander(s) within each Theater.   

 

The Army Commander(s) developed the Campaign Strategy.  Sometimes coordinated – often conflicted - within a Theater of Operation. 

This is why the rise of Grant to Lieutenant General with command in the field was critical to the Union war effort. 

Telegraph was a very limited communication medium for on-battlefield decisions and leaders needed to be physically on location to make strategic command decisions. 

For example – after the Wilderness the AoP would likely have retreated had Grant not been personally on location to make the strategic decision to advance.

 

Campaign Strategies were implemented by Corps Commanders. 

Corps Commanders developed strategies to deploy their Divisions and report these dispositions to the Army Commander. 

Often events dictated that the Corps Commanders exercised a great deal of autonomy - Jackson's Valley Campaign for example.

The responsibility to implement the Corps deployment strategy was delegated to Division Commanders.

 

Division Commanders determined order of march to accomplish their missions. 

AP Hill's March to Antietam is a famous example.  The arrival of his division had a strategic impact on the result of that battle.

 

Did Heth have a “strategy” when he ran into Buford’s Cavalry at Gettysburg?  It can be argued either way.  Was he simply following orders and deploying tactically? 

I’d suggest that while Heth had a plan his battle plans were tactical. 

But Heth’s actions effectively undermined and unraveled Lee’s strategy by reducing the CinC's options.

 

Lee’s strategy was to avoid a battle until the ANV was concentrated. 

 

Heth started the battle of Gettysburg. 

 

Heth’s tactical decision obviated Lee’s strategy.  

Was Heth's decision then strategic or tactical?  

I'd argue that Heth's decision was tactical - but the implications and consequences for the ANV were strategic.

 

Did Ewell, Longstreet, and AP Hill have a strategy when they moved to Gettysburg? 

I’d argue that once Lee ordered the concentration at Gettysburg Lee alone was in charge of the strategy for the ANV.

 

The Senior Commander on the field retained Operational Command until the Army Commander arrived to command in person. 

So is a battle plan a “strategy” or simply tactics?

 

I’d suggest that the decision to commit a Corps level asset is a strategic decision – usually taken by the Army Commander. 

Thus the Army Commander has an operational plan aka “battle strategy”.

 

Note that Lee proposed to redeploy Ewell’s Corps from the East of Gettysburg to the West and South to attack the Cemetery Ridge / Round Top line on July 2 and destroy the left flank of the AoP. 

 

Ewell considered this move impractical and Lee accepted this perspective. 

 

 

“Strategy” in the context of the UGG

 

In UGG the battle is broken up by Phases and the resources in each Phase are fixed.  Because the operational battle plan is fixed – it follows that the players are implementing options within a fixed strategy regime. 

 

Thus it follows that UGG is a tactical game as the player’s ability to control the strategy is restricted to a set of canned Phases.

 

In my mind the difference between a "strategy game" and a "tactics game" is the degrees of freedom that the player has to determine outcomes.

 

UGG is a great tactical game.  

 

That is a enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

feedback for the latest patch:

 

well done. Very well done. This is possibly the best state the game has ever been to date.

 

The Union infantry is much better at defending now. They don't run away at the first sight of a brown uniform anymore. Where before a Confederate player could just push his units forward and watch Union units flee in terror, and as soon as you took any advantage in a battle it resulted in the rout of the entire Union army, now they are much more resilient. It takes much longer to force the Union from positions they are defending. I guess this is also a result of the recent changes to terrain penalties and melee balancing.

 

The AI is much smarter. They maintain their lines better, they launch more coordinated attacks, etc.

 

For example, I just played the "Pickett Charges Union Left Flank" battle in my current campaign I have going. I sent Pickett's forces south to blast through to Little Round Top with McLaw's forces. It was a hard fight, and I eventually took just Little Round Top, but at a great cost. I took massive casualties which has screwed me over for the next battle, where I am basically outnumbered almost 2:1. And the AI made two coordinated counter attacks. One in the north, pushing down west from Cemetary Hill. They made coordinated pushes with multiple brigades all nice and lined up. I was just barely able to hold them off because my artillery had broken down their morale. The AI also launched a push on my right flank, south of Round Top. Again, it was a coordinated attack with his reinforcement cavalry and a brigade or two that broke my brigades there, and prevented me from also taking Round Top from him.

 

This Battle of Gettysburg playthrough has been the toughest I've had so far. The first day saw a minor victory and a draw. The second day saw a minor defeat and I think a minor victory (although I took so many casualties that it was rather Pyrrhic). This last battle will likely be a loss, because I can't see how my 10 thousand or so men can make any successes against 20 thousand some Union defenders.

 

Oh, this was against Cunning AI, by the way

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, awesome job on this game!  It's been so much fun.  Truly a gift to all the Civil War enthusiasts out there.  Quickly I wanted to offer a few Expansion Pack ideas that might be considered going forward.

 

1.)   The Battle of Pipe Creek-     Basically the Union forward elements sent into Gettysburg on July 1st fail to capture strategic high ground from which to base their line against the Confederates.  Even before the first minie ball was fired at Gettysburg Meade had been planning on concentrating his army along a long row of hills some 20 miles long just to the south of Big Pipe Creek running in a general east-west direction.  Thus the game would center around how a battle would have unfolded has Meade's first choice for a defensive line indeed been the one that saw battle.

 

2.)   The Battle of Chambersburg-   Basically the reverse of the Battle of Pipe Creek scenario where those Confederate forward elements of Hill's Corp on the 1st decide not to press the attack any further than light skirmishing once they see things almost certainly turning into a major pitched battle if the fighting continued.  (Essentially they are better about following Lee's original instructions NOT to get caught up in a major engagement.)  The Confederates therefore decide on Chambersburg to the west of Gettysburg as the point of concentration and it's here that the battle would open probably several days after the 1st with the Federals moving in from the east.  (I could envision there being a initial battle around the South Mountain/Carbaugh Run area between Gettysburg and Chambersburg.)

 

The only other random thought I had was perhaps enabling the players to slow down or even increase the pace of time. 

 

Thanks and have a good one!

 

Robby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid of mounted videttes..... no mounted units were involved in the battle except in the cavalry battle on day 3. Ranges of cavalry carbines should be reduced rifled muskets outranged them buy at least 50%. And you should check your history. Confederate Artillery were crack units in most cases better than their union counterparts. All Southern Infantry had better morale than any union unit except the Iron Brigade. In other words get rid of the pro-union bias......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid of mounted videttes..... no mounted units were involved in the battle except in the cavalry battle on day 3. Ranges of cavalry carbines should be reduced rifled muskets outranged them buy at least 50%. And you should check your history. Confederate Artillery were crack units in most cases better than their union counterparts. All Southern Infantry had better morale than any union unit except the Iron Brigade. In other words get rid of the pro-union bias......

Ok first of all, calm down.

 

Secondly, up until the latest patch, the game was extremely biased in favor of the confederates. In the game, most confederate units still DO have better morale than union units. There is no pro-union bias Mr. "Jonyreb". This is a game made by Europeans, not Yankees. Up until the most recent patch, the confederate side was way overpowered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New update available!

 

02/10/2014

In our first promotional screenshots, we promised a special filter that would make the battlefield look like a tilt-shift photo image. As the final release of the game approaches, we now offer the first version of this unique visual feature and more! The gameplay and AI received more improvements as per your feedback.

Patch notes: http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ultimate-general-pre-release-patch-3

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Tilt-Shift mode is.......interesting. Maybe too exaggerated though. It makes almost the whole screen blurry to the point where anything but what is directly in the middle is fuzzy and almost hurts the eyes to look at. It's definitely a cool effect, and gave it a pseudo-depth-of-field look, and it's certainly something to keep working at.

 

edit: actually, now that I think of it, it also really darkens the screen a lot. I've decided to turn it off, because 1) I like the bright look of the game, and 2) I like to be able to see what's going on even on the top or bottom of the screen.

 

Again, it's a cool effect, but maybe needs to be toned down a bit. Is it at all possible to have a slider, like with the Line of Sight Intensity and Fade?

 

 

Other than that, awesome patch. AI is as sharp as ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...