Where the heck is the full 4 day campaign game?!?!

[RH Lee]

I feel like I keep asking, but it never happens. Should I just give up and figure I have to be satisfied with a series of different battles none of which continues from where I left off in the last 1/2 day of fighting?

I haven't played UG:G for nearly two months, because I keep wishing for a full 4 day campaign - but just popped in with my fingers crossed and a prayer on my lips -- to find that it's still the same sad old story.

 

Morning of the first day draws to an end, the battle stops, then restarts in the afternoon - and the troop positions have completely shifted, aren't even close to the way they were at the close of the morning's battle. Not even close.  New units have arrived, teleported in for both sides, both Union and Confederate forces that were on the field when morning ended are totally shifted around - it's just...horribly frustrating.  *sigh*

 

I can't leave a review on Metacritic, because the game system is so awesome, the graphics are so excellent (I love the new tilt 3D look) that I love playing.  But I can't review it as it is, because  it's so incredibly annoying to never be able to play a continuous and full Battle of Gettysburg from beginning to end that I'd probably only give it a 5 or 6.  And that wouldn't be fair.  :-(

 

Ok - I'll shut up. Just had to - once again - complain that I really, really, REALLY wish I could just play the whole battle...    *sigh*   

[N.C.rebel]

You know the battle of gettysburg was a three day battle right and the fourth day was just an add on for what ifs scenarios? If you already knew that then you gotta understand this i the devs forst game and trying to work out bugs/glitches out most inportant. Dont worry itll come eventually lol

[Harnis]

why would units stay in exactly the same positions from the morning battle? If, say, you've chosen to attack a certain flank, why wouldn't the units reposition during the lull in fighting before you start the next battle?

 

And the units do remain in similar positions most of the time. They don't stay in exactly the same spots, but it's usually in the same general area.

 

 

And the next battles DO leave off where the previous battle ended.....troop casualties, morale, and condition carry over to the next battle, and the next battle's options depend on what was accomplished in the previous battle.

[David Fair]

RHLee, I've stayed off the game for more than a month for the same reasons.  

 

The continuity of the battle is missing from this game.

 

It is more like a series of mini tactical battles that are disjointed.

 

I'd like to come away with the sense that I'm commanding an army at Gettysburg.  

 

Right now I don't.

 

Lee stayed in position on Day 4 while his 13 miles of supply trains withdrew.  He anticipated a Union attack on Day 4.  

 

The fact that Meade did not attack doesn't mean that Meade couldn't have attacked.  

 

I thought altering history was the motivation for historical gaming.

 

I must be missing something.

[Ray_p]

RHLee, I've stayed off the game for more than a month for the same reasons.  

 

The continuity of the battle is missing from this game.

 

It is more like a series of mini tactical battles that are disjointed.

 

I'd like to come away with the sense that I'm commanding an army at Gettysburg.  

 

Right now I don't.

 

Lee stayed in position on Day 4 while his 13 miles of supply trains withdrew.  He anticipated a Union attack on Day 4.  

 

The fact that Meade did not attack doesn't mean that Meade couldn't have attacked.  

 

I thought altering history was the motivation for historical gaming.

 

I must be missing something.

 

 

 

 

 

Since I don't have the capability to play the more expansive battles without continuous breaks due to high CPU usage I can't get that far.  Maybe I will get some response to my input and some solution path as to how I can.  I tend to agree,  because the battles should be a continuous feel you should pickup at the positions and troop concentrations that you had when you finished the last battle.   New reinforcements should port in at that point.  

[blueakomoon]

Truth be told, I can wait for the Day-4 battles, and I can even stomach the shifting of units around (somewhat, it is very annoying when I have control of Culps Hill in the morning, but just because there is no VP on it, my forces withdraw during the night. WTF), but what really bugs me are my units morale and condition.  As the Union, I of course wear out the 1st and 11th on the 1st day, but don't use them at all during the 2nd day.  So, come the 3rd day, you would expect them to be nice and rested up right?  Nope, 11th is still routed, 1st is still at 0% condition.  I mean, what were they doing during the entire 2nd day?

[Nick Thomadis]

Day 4 battles are available but to unlock them you must fight a campaign as Confederates that leads to a 4th day scenario.

Hope this clarifies up.

[David Fair]

Nick you and I have different definitions of "clarified".

 

The philosophy of your game design is pretty darn frustrating to anyone looking for a fresh challenge in UGG.

 

I've literally taken VP objectives, grouped my Corps and put them on "hold" while I mow the lawn to see if I can unlock something new and interesting in UGG.  

 

It would be great if the game had less obscure scenario access paths.

 

Something like - Unlock Day 4 by doing X, Y, and Z.

 

I've spent months testing this game - and playing down to the quality level of the AI to unlock scenarios.  

Specifically, "In this test I'll take VP locations but leave others to see if I can unlock some different scenarios".

 

It is one thing to design a game that progressively offers increasingly more difficult challenges.

 

It is something completely different to hide scenarios behind obscure paths that can only be accessed through ineptitude in game play.

 

It seems to me that as players become more accomplished these obscure scenarios should be unlocked to give players something more than the repetitive scripts.

 

A alternative might be to allow players to create their own scenarios.

This way I can play a phase.  

Then create a new scenario that allows me to tie the phase I've just completed to the next phase in my custom scenario.

That way I can actually play the battle of Gettysburg in a coherent way.

 

I'm weary of  Union XII Corps arriving on the morning of Day 2 then disappearing at noon on Day 2.

 

I'm looking for a way to use your fantastic implementation of Gettysburg without the canned Phase continuity deployment / logic flaws. 

 

This is my biggest frustration with UGG.

[Ray_p]

Truth be told, I can wait for the Day-4 battles, and I can even stomach the shifting of units around (somewhat, it is very annoying when I have control of Culps Hill in the morning, but just because there is no VP on it, my forces withdraw during the night. WTF), but what really bugs me are my units morale and condition.  As the Union, I of course wear out the 1st and 11th on the 1st day, but don't use them at all during the 2nd day.  So, come the 3rd day, you would expect them to be nice and rested up right?  Nope, 11th is still routed, 1st is still at 0% condition.  I mean, what were they doing during the entire 2nd day?

 

Even after the update,  playing the Union side still see's units break far to easily.  Union units holding good ground and with superior numbers still brake and run when fronted or charged by even a single Confederate unit.   Certain Union units you don't want anywhere near your front line.   I just put them in the back now because that is where they will endup anyways.  AS I commented the other day far to much babysitting is required of certain units.  Please give me brigade and corp commanders that have a stomach and will hold their ground or move to a designated position.

 

Also it is a bit numerous that some units have to fall back to somewhere near Harrisburg before they regroup.   If US Grant or Patton where in charge a few of these guys would get a big boot in the butt.

[David Fair]

Ray-p,

 

Have you played on the less difficult settings?

 

When I play the Union I'm slaughtering the CSA.  I just played a 5 phase campaign as the Union with the CSA AI on Cunning.  

Union managed to hold 51,000 VP locations while the CSA held 7,000 VP's.

 

Union lost 19,651 casualties while CSA lost 33,170.  

 

Result of the campaign was an epic victory at noon on Day 3 - and I was fussing around with some experiments while this game was in progress.

 

When I switch things around and play the CSA the Union AI gets slaughtered.

 

REB Blunt and others have provided excellent guidance on tactics - have you read some of these posts?

 

I'm not certain what the problem is but tuning the game to beef up the Union doesn't seem like a great suggestion based on my experience with UGG.

[RH Lee]

I'm not concerned with whether I win or lose, but as commented by Blueakomoon and David Fair it's not just that the units are in different positions, it's that the entire layout of the forces is different. It has nothing to do with whether I play difficult, medium or easy AI - when I end a battle controlling Culp's Hill, or in total control of Seminary Ridge, and then start the next stage of the campaign with all my troops far from either of those, or when I end a battle completely occupying all of the town of Gettysburg and then when the next stage starts all my forces are sitting outside of Gettysburg to the north or northwest it is both frustrating and inexplicable.

I give great kudos to the devs for having created a game with excellent graphics, a very intuitive and facile interface, superb game mechanics, and all of that --- but right now this is NOT a game of the Battle of Gettysburg. It is a combination of piece meal battles which comprise various scenarios for certain parts of the battle - all of which are both interesting, well done, and enjoyable - but it simply is NOT the Battle of Gettysburg.  

What I'm saying is that if one were to rate UG:G as a simulation of various individual components of the overall battle - I'd give it a 10 rating - 5 stars out of 5 - whatever. Excellent, superb, etc.

 

But if one were to rate it as a simulation of the Battle of Gettysburg (and forget the 4th day - there WAS no 4th day in 1863) then I couldn't give it more than 5 or 5 1/2 because it simply is not a full campaign game. I'll check back in a month or so - and will keep hoping for the full battle to become available.

 

Because (to be redundantly repetitive) right now, as it stands - it is not.

 

And Nick Thomas - what you posted is not even remotely a response to my complaint and the problem that I have pointed out. Hopefully you understand that your answer doesn't even begin to address what I'm discussing.  Seriously.  It's the game continuity and phasing differential flaws that currently make what could well be the best Civil War ever, and one of the very best computer game tactical battle simulations of all time...into "the one that missed the target."  

[R.E.B.Blunt]

RH Lee,

 

I think you also need to take into account that the Battle of Gettysburg was fluid and not Static. Point in fact after the First day Union 1st Corps was retired to Culps Hill and Cemetary Hill after defending Seminary Ridge. After each action you choose to either attack the right or left flank, Your army of course will move accordingly. Then hence forth will not be in that same location. There are also other times the enemy will attack you and your army will have to counter to react to his movements or risk being out flanked.

 

Also in civil war battles usually after the battle of fierce fighting and units were worn out and ran out of ammo. They would retire a distance away from the battle to be refitted with ammo and fill canteens, rest under some shade and tend to their wounded. Its very hard to be resupplied when your entire Brigade is still on the same exact location that you just fought.

 

So actually from the historical perspective this game does give a very good portrayal of the American Civil War battle of Gettysburg. I dont see what the big deal is.

[David Fair]

It's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases.

 

Some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg - that's the big deal.

 

Commanding an army is our goal - and planning and continuity to execute those plans are fundamental to the enjoyment of the game and gaining a sense that we are commanding an army at the Battle of Gettysburg.  

 

UGG advertises itself as a simulator to replay Gettysburg (not a canned series of tactical battles that don't flow from one phase to the next).

 

Please explain why XII Corps routinely disappears at noon on Day 2 between phases?

 

 

Also...

 

Let's do some logistics math.

 

A single wagon carried about 25,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.

If a brigade of 1,000 men were resupplied with 60 rounds each this would require 60,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.

 

So you are suggesting that it was easier to move 1,000 men in the middle of a battle, or even more comical at night, than to move 3 wagons forward to resupply men on the line?

 

Now if we consider a 10,000 man Corps we are talking about moving 30 wagons (assuming every man had discharged every round he carried). 

 

Moving a 10,000 man formation at night is a challenge.  

Getting them into correct positions to fight is very difficult at night.  

This was Sickles excuse for moving III Corps forward on July 2.

 

Fresh units could perform this task (Jackson at Chancellorsville).  

But units that had fought to the end of their supplies were rarely in condition to perform such a feat.

 

You are suggesting that units that have fought and consumed their ammunition to take Culp's Hill or other key locations abandoned critical position instead of moving up ammunition wagons?

 

The Iron Brigade was resupplied by 3 wagons dropping 70,000 rounds of ammunition off for the brigade during the McPherson's Ridge fight.

Resupply on or near the line wasn't that unusual.

 

Please provide ANY example from the ACW supporting this "withdrawl to resupply" silliness.

I can't think of a single example of a critical position that was abandoned during a lull in the middle of an ACW battle due to resupply issues.

There are many examples of supply as a key consideration to abandon positions.

But these units were ordered to new locations.

 

The idea that the CSA takes Culp's Hill then retreats north of Gettysburg to resupply is absurd.

 

Was it preferable to resupply by rotation - yes.

Was it impossible to resupply troops on the firing line - no.

Was it common to abandon key positions to resupply - no.

 

Yet this this what happens twice a day in UGG between phases.

 

 

UGG Dev Team Resource Priorities:

 

These phases represent lulls in the fighting - which is great.  

 

But transporting a Corps from one location to another at noon during a lull in the fighting is bizarre.  

 

After fighting for a day troops were adverse to moving at night to resupply.  

This is precisely the conversation Lee had with Ewell after Day 1 at Gettysburg.  

 

If this is a game of the ACW then the troops should behave within the bounds of reality for the ACW.

I'd much rather have battle continuity than the "Tilt-Shift" effort.

 

Finally, if I'm the Ultimate General I should be deciding how to deploy my resources for the next fight.

The idea that the game takes control of the between phase deployment removes them most critical decision in the entire game to a canned script.  

 

The game is the Ultimate General in UGG.

 

The developers have done a fine job with aspects of this game - but it is really frustrating watching new features being added (Tilt-Shift) when the fundamentals of the game have such glaring logic and play continuity flaws.

[CSA Watkins]

It's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases.

 

Some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg - that's the big deal.

 

Commanding an army is our goal - and planning and continuity to execute those plans are fundamental to the enjoyment of the game and gaining a sense that we are commanding an army at the Battle of Gettysburg.  

 

UGG advertises itself as a simulator to replay Gettysburg (not a canned series of tactical battles that don't flow from one phase to the next).

 

Please explain why XII Corps routinely disappears at noon on Day 2 between phases? 

 

Also...

 

Let's do some logistics math.........snip

 

******

David Fair you hit the nail on the head there, I couldn't agree more!

Nice research/Great post. 

The logistics math you laid out is an eye opener,

the difficulties up against a Corp Commander/Cmnd.General.

Holding a critical Position after a Hard fought Battle.

"Resupply/Rotate"

Quote:

Was it preferable to resupply by rotation - yes.

Was it impossible to resupply troops on the firing line - no.

Was it common to abandon key positions to resupply - no.

 

The developers have done a fine job with aspects of this game - but it is really frustrating watching new features being added (Tilt-Shift) when the fundamentals of the game have such glaring logic and play continuity flaws.

[Harnis]

when I end a battle controlling Culp's Hill, or in total control of Seminary Ridge, and then start the next stage of the campaign with all my troops far from either of those, or when I end a battle completely occupying all of the town of Gettysburg and then when the next stage starts all my forces are sitting outside of Gettysburg to the north or northwest it is both frustrating and inexplicable.

I give great kudos to the devs for having created a game with excellent graphics, a very intuitive and facile interface, superb game mechanics, and all of that --- but right now this is NOT a game of the Battle of Gettysburg. It is a combination of piece meal battles which comprise various scenarios for certain parts of the battle - all of which are both interesting, well done, and enjoyable - but it simply is NOT the Battle of Gettysburg.  

What I'm saying is that if one were to rate UG:G as a simulation of various individual components of the overall battle - I'd give it a 10 rating - 5 stars out of 5 - whatever. Excellent, superb, etc.

 

But if one were to rate it as a simulation of the Battle of Gettysburg (and forget the 4th day - there WAS no 4th day in 1863) then I couldn't give it more than 5 or 5 1/2 because it simply is not a full campaign game. I'll check back in a month or so - and will keep hoping for the full battle to become available.

 

Because (to be redundantly repetitive) right now, as it stands - it is not.

 

And Nick Thomas - what you posted is not even remotely a response to my complaint and the problem that I have pointed out. Hopefully you understand that your answer doesn't even begin to address what I'm discussing.  Seriously.  It's the game continuity and phasing differential flaws that currently make what could well be the best Civil War ever, and one of the very best computer game tactical battle simulations of all time...into "the one that missed the target."  

1) units frequently fell back and gave up positions they fought for earlier in the day in order to resupply and regroup. Like Blunt said, it even happened historically. The Union defended Seminary Ridge, but then withdrew to Cemetery and Culp's.

 

2) this game is not a "simulation of the battle of Gettysburg" in the way you are expecting it to be. I suggest you read the main description of the game on the website.

http://www.ultimategeneral.com/

Some quotes:

"On the morning of July 1st 1863, the two armies meet near Gettysburg. Reinforcements arrive from historically accurate directions as the battle progresses, however, random events, delays and tactical differences are always a possibility that can change the results of each engagement compared to history."

 

"Can you re-enact Pickett’s Charge? What if Lee attacked the center of the Union Army early in the morning of July 2nd of 1863 instead of attempting to flank the extreme left in the afternoon? What would happen if Meade counter-attacked on July 4th 1863? These questions and more can be answered within the game engine of Ultimate General: Gettysburg."

 

The game gives us the options to change history. That's pretty standard for any historical RTS game. It wouldn't be any fun if, say, Rome 2 Total War ALWAYS followed exact historical events. It would be no fun playing as the Gauls knowing that you were guaranteed to lose by a certain date. So yeah, there was no fighting on the 4th day historically. But there could have been. And the game allows for that possibility, as it should. That does not make it any less of a "simulation". "simulation" does not mean "exact replication". When they run a weather simulation of a tropical storm system, it's not an exact replication of exactly what will happen perfectly. It's a simulation showing realistic possibilities in a realistic testing environment.

 

3) The historical battle was not one long continuous engagement. There were plenty of breaks and lulls in the fighting. Having the battle as one long continuous battle in the game would be boring. You'd play for an hour on day one, passing a few hours of in-game time, and then sit there doing nothing for another 3 hours until night passes. It is not unrealistic to break up the "Battle of Gettysburg" into "piecemeal battles", because that's pretty much how it was historically.

 

It's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases.

 

Some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg - that's the big deal.

 

Commanding an army is our goal - and planning and continuity to execute those plans are fundamental to the enjoyment of the game and gaining a sense that we are commanding an army at the Battle of Gettysburg.  

 

UGG advertises itself as a simulator to replay Gettysburg (not a canned series of tactical battles that don't flow from one phase to the next).

 

 

first off, easy on the condescension.

 

Second, you really do need to read again what UGG is advertised as. It is not a "simulator to REPLAY Gettysburg". It is a realistic environment in which to play out the battle however it happens. It's not guaranteed to recreate and replay the historical battle. That wouldn't even be any fun.

 

 

 

You are suggesting that units that have fought and consumed their ammunition to take Culp's Hill or other key locations abandoned critical position instead of moving up ammunition wagons?

 

The Iron Brigade was resupplied by 3 wagons dropping 70,000 rounds of ammunition off for the brigade during the McPherson's Ridge fight.

Resupply on or near the line wasn't that unusual.

 

Please provide ANY example from the ACW supporting this "withdrawl to resupply" silliness.

I can't think of a single example of a critical position that was abandoned during a lull in the middle of an ACW battle due to resupply issues.

There are many examples of supply as a key consideration to abandon positions.

But these units were ordered to new locations.

 

The idea that the CSA takes Culp's Hill then retreats north of Gettysburg to resupply is absurd.

 

Was it preferable to resupply by rotation - yes.

Was it impossible to resupply troops on the firing line - no.

Was it common to abandon key positions to resupply - no.

 

Yet this this what happens twice a day in UGG between phases.

 

 

UGG Dev Team Resource Priorities:

 

These phases represent lulls in the fighting - which is great.  

 

But transporting a Corps from one location to another at noon during a lull in the fighting is bizarre.  

 

After fighting for a day troops were adverse to moving at night to resupply.  

This is precisely the conversation Lee had with Ewell after Day 1 at Gettysburg.  

 

If this is a game of the ACW then the troops should behave within the bounds of reality for the ACW.

I'd much rather have battle continuity than the "Tilt-Shift" effort.

 

Finally, if I'm the Ultimate General I should be deciding how to deploy my resources for the next fight.

The idea that the game takes control of the between phase deployment removes them most critical decision in the entire game to a canned script.  

 

The game is the Ultimate General in UGG.

 

The developers have done a fine job with aspects of this game - but it is really frustrating watching new features being added (Tilt-Shift) when the fundamentals of the game have such glaring logic and play continuity flaws.

 

I have not yet encountered this situation you mention where you take Culp's Hill, and then the next battle you are deployed north of Gettysburg again.

 

And as for your lovely ammunition calculations, ammo isn't the only issue. You are conveniently ignoring that Blunt also mentioned water, rest, and tending the injured. There are plenty of reasons why units fell back after taking or holding certain positions.

 

And as for examples of positions that were taken, but later given up for non-combat reasons (ie not given up because they were being shot at, but just because they had to withdraw for other reasons): pretty much all the Confederate advances on the 2nd day. They took positions in the south at the round tops and devils den. Wright's brigade took a position on the top of Cemetery Ridge. But at the end of the day's fighting, those positions were given up due to lack of support, lack of supply, etc etc, whatever the reasons were.

 

On the one hand you complain that the game doesn't follow the way the historical battle played out closely enough, but then you complain that units fall back in between the days of fighting the way they did historically.

 

 

 

 

[David Fair]

Harris,

 

Condescension?  Blunt asked "what's the big deal?"  

No condescension was intended in my response.  

My response was a direct and clear.

 

 

If you haven't experienced playing as the CSA and having the CSA being moved off of Culp's Hill or playing as the Union and had the Union fight over the same terrain in multiple phases as you move north to Herr Ridge on Day 2 or Day 3 you just haven't played UGG very much.

 

 

RH Lee's comments are valid and spot on.

 

The Union defended Seminary Ridge then withdrew - they were not teleported off the ridge during a lull in the battle.

There are no historical examples of ACW units being teleported in any battle of the ACW.

Teleporting is a feature unique to UGG that has nothing to do with the ACW.

 

I did not complain that the battle did not follow the historical script for battle of Gettysburg - quite the opposite.  

 

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "one continuous battle".  

 

My point is that:

1) there needs to be a logical flow and continuity between phases.  

2) The canned phases don't represent enough degrees of freedom for the players.

3) The state of the game gets reset to the canned script between phases. 

4) Unlocking phases by playing down to the quality of the AI gets annoying.

 

 

 

PS - 

 

The comments on this forum are for the developers to consider.  

 

My perspective, and others, is that this game has some issues with phase transitions - which is why we are testing and communicating with the developers.

 

You are welcome to your own opinions - as am I.

[Harnis]

It's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases.

 

Some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg - that's the big deal.

 

condescension. Otherwise known as talking down to someone, patronizing superiority. Shall I break it down for you? When you tell someone "it's great that you love playing a series of canned tactical phases" in that context of "well good for you if you like X inferior gameplay", it is condescending. Saying "some of us want to play the Battle of Gettysburg" - implying that people who disagree with you somehow don't? That's condescending. You can deny that you were being condescending, and that's expected, but whatever.

 

 

If you haven't experienced playing as the CSA and having the CSA being moved off of Culp's Hill or playing as the Union and had the Union fight over the same terrain in multiple phases as you move north to Herr Ridge on Day 2 or Day 3 you just haven't played UGG very much.

 

You can see for yourself how much I have played it. I've played for 54 hours. How about you? Not that measuring e-peen like that makes much of a difference. And besides, if playing 54 hours is not considered "very much" and is not enough to see this horrendous teleporting you're talking about, then 

clearly it's not that bad of an issue.

 

The Union defended Seminary Ridge then withdrew - they were not teleported off the ridge during a lull in the battle.

There are no historical examples of ACW units being teleported in any battle of the ACW.

Teleporting is a feature unique to UGG that has nothing to do with the ACW.

 

no, nobody teleported. What's your point? Who said anything about teleporting? If historically, the Union forces withdrew to Cemetery Ridge in the lull in the fighting after successfully holding Seminary Ridge, why is it so unrealistic if this happens in the game? Units do not "teleport" in UGG either. Why do you think they teleport?

 

 

I did not complain that the battle did not follow the historical script for battle of Gettysburg - quite the opposite.  

 

So you don't have an issue with there being a 4th day to the battle? Because it seemed like you did.

 

 

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "one continuous battle".  

 

My point is that:

1) there needs to be a logical flow and continuity between phases.  

2) The canned phases don't represent enough degrees of freedom for the players.

3) The state of the game gets reset to the canned script between phases. 

4) Unlocking phases by playing down to the quality of the AI gets annoying.

 

 

1&2) You complain about continuity between phases. So, if you don't want the game to be one single continuous battle from day 1 to day 3, then you are ok with the different phases existing. So what exactly is not continuous? Unit positions? When phases are separated by anywhere from hours to an entire night, why would you expect units to stay in all the exact same places as the previous phase? If you move Pettigrew's Brigade to the top of Seminary Ridge in a battle on the afternoon of day 1, why on earth would you expect that Pettigrew's Brigade would be in that exact same spot on the morning of the second day?

 

3) it does not get reset to a canned script. Depending on what you did in the previous battle, your units are in slightly different starting positions. I am still testing this to see how much it does this, but it's pretty clear that whatever is going on, it's not just resetting to a canned script for the next phase of the battle.

 

4) since patch 0.9 when they made it easier to unlock the battles, I've unlocked every single battle just by playing, not by artificially trying to unlock them by playing a certain way. If you haven't unlocked all the phases yet, you just haven't played UGG very much

[David Fair]

Harris,

 

Please keep in mind that the forum community is trying to assist the development team to make this game a success.

 

IMO if this game is rolled out in it current state the game will have very limited appeal.

As a tester I'm trying to contribute to the game to have it appeal to the broadest possible audience.

 

When you have a moment you might take a look at some of the older posts.  

Numerous dedicated players have been driven away from the game for precisely the reasons identified in these posts.

I respect that you don't agree with my perspective.

 

But this is an unfortunate and accurate fact.

 

 

 

As requested here are my stats:

 

I've been working with the development team since December 2013.  

I'm one of the only original testers still contributing to the testing of the game.

Since the game was released on Steam I've tested for 165 hours.

There is no statistics on the number of hours I put into this game prior to its release on Steam.

I've posted 631 times on various aspects of the game in the forum and 210 of these posts have been "liked" by the community.

 

When someone posts there perspective and the response is, "what's the big deal" is that not condescension?

Seems to me that your standards are skewed - if you don't like someone's perspective you flame 'em.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make - we just have different opinions.

 

 

PS -

The Union did not withdraw during a "lull in the fighting on Seminary Ridge".  

The Union XI and I Corps collapsed and withdrew under duress.  

Some units were fighting into and through Gettysburg with the CSA hot on their heels during this retreat.

 

The "lull" in the battle occurred after the Union reestablished their positions on the Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill positions.

 

Also, "lulls" did not occur ubiquitously at or near noon during the ACW as happens in UGG. 

 

The two "lulls" on Day 1 at Gettysburg happened first after Heth had been repulsed by Union troops on McPherson's Ridge and secondly sometime after 4:30 pm (sources vary on the precise time).

 

These lulls were timed based on the status of the units - not a timer set to go off at or near noon on each day of the battle.

 

We simply have different definitions of a "canned battle".

[Harnis]

of course the community is trying to help make this game a success.

 

But I would caution over-enthusiasm about making this game appeal to "the masses". It's a common thing for game developers to do, and they end up sacrificing the original intent of the game just to appeal to the same masses that like Call of Duty or Candy Crush.

 

To be honest, I don't see a problem with this game having a limited appeal. What the devs are aiming for with this game is almost by definition going to be a game with limited appeal. I don't think UGG should be made to appeal to the broadest possible audience, and I don't think the devs do either.

 

 

either way, what do you even think should be changed? Units staying in the exact same positions between phases? No time gaps between phases? having more phases to fill the gaps?

[David Fair]

I'd like you to explain why Union XII Corps joins the battle on July 2 in the morning then routinely disappears at noon on Day 2 between phases?

[Ray_p]

Ray-p,

 

Have you played on the less difficult settings?

 

When I play the Union I'm slaughtering the CSA.  I just played a 5 phase campaign as the Union with the CSA AI on Cunning.  

Union managed to hold 51,000 VP locations while the CSA held 7,000 VP's.

 

Union lost 19,651 casualties while CSA lost 33,170.  

 

Result of the campaign was an epic victory at noon on Day 3 - and I was fussing around with some experiments while this game was in progress.

 

When I switch things around and play the CSA the Union AI gets slaughtered.

 

REB Blunt and others have provided excellent guidance on tactics - have you read some of these posts?

 

I'm not certain what the problem is but tuning the game to beef up the Union doesn't seem like a great suggestion based on my experience with UGG.

David,  yes I usually as a new player use balanced for the AI.

 

Perhaps some here will give me a tip,  when a unit falls back and regroups should you leave it in that position or move it forward again?   If you move it forward how close to the line should it go?   I find moving regrouped units forward makes them just fall back again causing endless keystrokes.   Like to know what I should be doing.

[David Fair]

Ray-p,

 

A couple of quick thoughts...

 

If you're just learning the game you might want to play defensively at first.

 

First and foremost get your units aligned on heavy "cover".

 

Then get your artillery immediately in front of your infantry.  

I keep mine on "shell" or "canister".

My goal is to drive down the CSA morale with a couple of artillery shots before they can charge me off of my infantry positions.

When the CSA gets close set your artillery on "canister" and ensure you give it enough time to be 100% reloaded before the charge.

When the CSA charges you want the artillery to fire a round of canister - then hit "fallback" with the artillery to get them out of harms way until they can reload.  You may need to hit "fallback" a couple of times to protect your artillery.

 

The combination of artillery fire and infantry support will usually slow down the CSA charges.

 

It is important to micromanage your artillery - keep it in good shape by setting it on "shell" or "canister".

Don't let them sit on "shot" - they will fire continuously until they destroy their morale.

When a battery is low on "morale" get it to the rear.  It is better to have it available in the next battle than lose it early.

 

You want to keep a couple of Union infantry units in reserve.  When the morale of the front line units start to drop hit "fallback".  You can usually have your units on the line "fallback" behind the supporting reserves.  

 

Never turn your back to the enemy unless you can quickly get them on a reverse slope where their artillery won't rout your damaged units at long-range.  The key to recovering "morale" and "condition" is to keep your units out of the line of fire and far enough away to allow them to rest.  

Also, having a general close to these recovering units is essential.  

I usually position my general close to the action.  

As units start to "fallback" I try to keep the general with the units falling back to maximize recovery rates.

 

The goal of the early phases is to drain the CSA infantry.  I'm usually able to inflict casualties at a 1.5 to 1 ratio which has serious long-term effects on the later phases.  The CSA will eventually run out of infantry unless they are very careful.

 

Give up ground.  VP's aren't that important and they keep the game going.  Don't overextend your lines.  I'd rather fight with concentrated troops on a few locations than spread a thin line of troops over all the battlefield.

 

The critical thing to do is to ensure that the Union forces are not routed.  Keep falling back and using "cover".  

 

In the first couple of phases I rarely move Union units forward.  I usually position units so they have room to fall back and still hold VP locations.

For example - on Oak Ridge move your infantry units near the base of the hill.  

Oak Hill is high enough that artillery placed higher on the hill, behind the Union infantry, can fire over your troops.

By taking the edge of the "cover" you deprive the CSA of the "cover".

You want the unfair advantage of "cover" where you can deprive the CSA of the same advantage.

 

After you get the defensive tactics mastered you can start developing offensive tactics.

[Harnis]

 

I'd like you to explain why Union XII Corps joins the battle on July 2 in the morning then routinely disappears at noon on Day 2 between phases?

 

I will need to play through it and see exactly what happens. I've never really noticed that disappearance, I've been playing mostly as the Confederates to test Union defensive capabilities.

 

David,  yes I usually as a new player use balanced for the AI.

 

Perhaps some here will give me a tip,  when a unit falls back and regroups should you leave it in that position or move it forward again?   If you move it forward how close to the line should it go?   I find moving regrouped units forward makes them just fall back again causing endless keystrokes.   Like to know what I should be doing.

David gives good tactical advice.

 

As for where to move units that have regrouped, it depends. Monitor their morale. If you notice, falling back recovers morale, especially if you order them to fall back yourself before they run away. Watch the regrouped unit and decide when you think they have enough morale to push forward again. As a general rule, idk, maybe 40-50%? But it really depends what you want them to do. If you just want them to move up to a supporting position in the battle lines, then even at 20-30% they can do it, as long as they won't face heavy combat. Want them to assault a heavily defended position in cover? Better wait until they are back to 70-80% morale.

 

and like David said, the trick is to keep regrouping units out of fire. If they fall back, and are sitting there under fire from artillery, they won't recover much morale.