UGCW Feedback v0.68 (UPDATE: 28/11/2016)

[Nick Thomadis]

Ultimate General: Civil War has been released on Steam Early Access.

You can read useful information about the game in this blog post:
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ugcw-release-early-access

You may provide your feedback in this thread.

We hope you will enjoy the game!

The Game-Labs Team

UPDATE: 28/11/2016
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ugcw-patch-068

[michaelsmithern]

Can't wait, i gotta go make sure i have enough money in my bank account before i do i buy it though

Look forward to playing it

[Lincolns Mullet]

Hi Louis, I've primarily played from the CSA campaign during testing but regardless of your losses, you will be given the opportunity to replenish them and continue building your army.  Consider you are building an army at the start of the war, so you are provided with men and money as you progress.  You will lose the entire campaign if you suffer too many defeats, and actual losses of men will affect your ability to fight the next battle.  Winning battles provides greater cash/men, and if you invest in politics you will receive even more cash/men after a battle.

You CAN suffer enormous losses and still win a battle, but you will realize that this is not sustainable long-term.  You'll be forced to replace losses with rookies, you'll lose weapons and have to replace them with cheaper ones, etc. You won't gain new skill points to invest in things like politics or medicine, which help offset losses.

So, there is a very real penalty for losing a lot of men.  When you see your favorite veteran brigade get decimated, you'll cringe.  Replacing 1000 veterans can cost upwards of 30k for a single brigade, or more if they're using expensive weapons.  And as your army expands from being 7k strong to 30k strong, replacing 15k men will be cost prohibitive if trying to do so as veterans.  The majority of your replacements will be rookies, who will perform far less effectively.

[Koro]

40 minutes ago, Louis Garneray said:

Ok so I tried my first impression is that it looks great!

The first battle and then I was late for work...

I have one comment so far.

I was playing the Union side for the first battle of the campaign and I was barely able to take the objective but with great losses. I think I shouldn't be able to get to the next level if my losses are enormous.

 

You also need to hold it in the next stage against an AI counterattack. Good luck :).

[Mr. Mercanto]

First off, let me just calmly say

OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!!!


Ok...that's out of my system. About to load up steam and get this on my laptop and PC. Nick, I would love to offer my humble services, be they what they are for update testing.


Oh. My. GOD!!


Mr. Mercanto

[marvingardns]

NOTE: I created a thread with the below comments before I saw this thread. Sorry to double post!  Feel free to delete my previous thread.  

I saw the FB ad this morning at 7:30am.  I bought the game fifteen minutes later and went to work. I came home at lunch and played thirty minutes of Shiloh after it downloaded via Steam.  UGG is one of the best lite wargames I've ever played. Hands down.  Just some quick feedback and suggestions since this is in Early Access:

- Pathfinding seems linear with no waypoints, or drawing lines of advance as per UGG for the iPad. Maybe I'm missing something since I did not do the tutorial.  It seems like an obvious feature that will have to be shored up.

- Could use some names of generals for the Corps commanders. 

- A general reserve system would be great for the larger battles with individual phases.  If you are having trouble breaking a position before the mission time ends, perhaps you can draw on a general reserve available for the whole battle... such as a division, artillery, supply, etc.  Use of that reserve would place it on the field and it cannot be drawn upon in other sections of the battle. 

- Topographic contour lines would be useful.  Again I did not do the tutorial so they may already be there. 

- Its difficult to tell if capturing enemy camps actually yields supply.  It would be nice if other sources of supply could be from captured troops.  I did not that Cleburne (at Shiloh) ran out of ammunition. I charged him and he had a restoration of small supply after he beat off the enemy brigade, so this system may already be in place.

- I like the idea of capturing certain markers on the battlefield yields benefits such as supply, or superior observation. I hope the game expounds on this.  

- Moving infantry by roads should convey faster movement benefits if this is already not built into the engine.  

- Sound has excellent depth, but I would mind hearing more infantry "clatter."  I have mistaken musketry fire for cannon fire because of the oddly deep musketry sound.  The sound of charging doesn't sound terribly climactic or chaotic.  Where's the warbling "halloo!" of the rebel yell?  

- Expansion packs, expansion packs.  I'll buy them all if they give me individual campaigns in Missouri, New Mexico, the Teche...

- Just cosmetic, but I'd rather see deaths say "casualties." 

- MORE fog of war!!  Intense musketry created lots of smoke to the point where all a regiment can really see is the enemy in front at best, and sometimes none at all except the muzzle flashes of the opposing side.  So if a unit is engaged in fire, they should have limited visibility of any other opponents working their flanks or held in reserve behind the firing line. I tend to think of the Wargame series (Red Dragon) where fog of war and recon make all the difference in that game. There you can simulate "command push" to gain decisive breakthrough pressure on the enemy. This would be accomplished by having reserves "hidden" by the FOW behind the frontline regiments. Or you can "recon pull" to expose and exploit weak points in the enemy line by cavalry and skirmishers. The resultant exposure would draw reserves into a breakthrough at the weak link.  

- An option to hide or "estimate" the number of enemy troops in a regiment.  Again, more fog of war.  

- Order delays.  Again more fog of war.  The scourge of war system utilizes this to great effect.  

I can give more feedback later as I get into the campaign.  

Edited November 16, 2016 by marvingardns

[Mr. Mercanto]

I'm not sure this is the right place for this question so I have created a separate thread "New Mechanics" for such queries. 

However, in the hopes of getting some guidance, I thought I would also ask here. I was wondering if someone could help me understand how to place my men behind cover? I have placed them behind and on top of walls, however they do not take cover behind them and their cover remains low. how do I order them to explicitly take cover behind walls or other obstructions? 

Thanks!

[Alex.Reiter]

More sound variation . In gettysburg it was quite ok , but now I feel there is not enough ambience, death screams etc. 

[JJPettigrew]

After my first 5 hours ....  Congratulations , Really a great game , intuitive (at least for a miniature wargamer) and adictive.  A real upgrade over the previous with several interesting features .

some suggestions :

  - It really needs been able to enter/quit  pause mode with a single key stroke (SPACE being binded to this function is a kind of convention for RTS who allows giving orders in PAUSE mode).

- Units can perhaps be too sensitive to flanking even by tiny units . 

- I would expect a greater level of reaction at least by units who has its leader in good condition. would help specially in big scenarios , a few examples:  

1. Refusing a flank  when unit is barely enfiladed
2. Cavalry countercharging enemy cavalry 
3. Skirmisher units falling back by themselves against enemy charges/advances (maybe  a switch to activate this).

 

I feel this game is gonna be a milestone in the genre. Keep on the good work

 

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

Great game so far. Just a few comments and suggestions of things I'd like to see in-game in the future.

Change Deaths to Casualties (currently it makes it seem like they are coming back from the dead instead of healing.)

Ability to zoom in a little closer to the map.

 

Expansions: This game has a great chance to expand into the various theaters of the war. (I know this is early access, just listing my hopes for future dlc or something if yall ever add it)

Seven Pines (part of the peninsula campaign)

Seven Days Battles (the only maps i've notice in-game is Gaines Mill and Malvern Hill, gonna have to double check)

The Wilderness and Spotsylvania Courthouse (Major Battles in the Overland Campaign, they are must haves imo)

Red River Campaign, Bayou Teche Campaign etc.

Chattanooga (Battle above the Clouds)

Vicksburg

 

The only real complaints I have are with the ai, it's good but sometimes they do the dumbest things.

I order them to walk to a certain point but instead of stopping they walk straight into the enemy and get into a fistfight.

Sometimes they expose their flanks to the enemy directly in front of them.

I've even had my cannons randomly charge into an enemy brigade.

Just small things, nothing too serious.

 

 

[Luckybluemoon]

So far, love the game.  I played UG:G from the beta as well so I hope to see the same level of awesomeness.

In terms of feed back...

1. Love that cover now actually hides your units (forest, corn) and that you can station a unit in fortifications like walls or towns.  That said, is there a way you can make it so a unit can create their own walls given enough time and not being ordered to move?  Maybe a just a small slog wall that grants a cover bonus of like 30%.  Then that wall stays on the map for units to move into and out of just like the stone walls.  And to stop the map from getting all gummed up, if another wall is built across an existing wall, then the existing wall is dismantled.

2.  Map countour lines please.

3.  Please allow me to zoom in more.  I love to get up close and personal, like we could in UG:G.  So far the zoom doesn't allow that.

4. Generals and supply wagons seem OP.  Had a wagon take three volleys from skirmishers and three from a cav unit and only lost half its hit points.  It had no escort and was in a wide open field.

5.  Could the same popups that announce the sighting of new enemy units and such be used to announce when a friendly unit is low on ammunition?  Maybe like when they reach 30% supply? 

I'll have more later.  Thanks! and keep up the amazing work!

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Luckybluemoon

[Legioneod]

Along with the things I mentioned above, I'd like to see more of a dynamic campaign.

 

I'd like to see the ability to plan your own campaigns and not be set to the historical campaigns (overland, Gettysburg, etc)

I'd like to see battles have more consequence on each side and to actually have an effect on the war. And I'd like to plan the battle stages myself or fight the battle on one big map instead of being stages.

If the timer runs down then the battle will go to the next day if you don't lose, or you could choose to pull out and fight another day.

The campaign is just real linear at the moment and I was hoping for something my dynamic.

[Grognard_JC]

21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Along with the things I mentioned above, I'd like to see more of a dynamic campaign.

 

I'd like to see the ability to plan your own campaigns and not be set to the historical campaigns (overland, Gettysburg, etc)

I'd like to see battles have more consequence on each side and to actually have an effect on the war. And I'd like to plan the battle stages myself or fight the battle on one big map instead of being stages.

If the timer runs down then the battle will go to the next day if you don't lose, or you could choose to pull out and fight another day.

The campaign is just real linear at the moment and I was hoping for something my dynamic.

 

I agree with Legioneod. It seems the campaign could become a little bit more dynamic or sandboxy. I hope the devs can bring us more of this.

 

I'm very satisfied so far (short experience though) with the HARD difficulty that actually offers me a good challenge. I even lost my second battle as I was overconfident.

I won the third battle, but I lost 90% of my corps, ruining all the XP and money I had gathered so far. This feels very good.

(And plz, add MP!)

[RookCW]

Really small question:

Is there any way in the future we can change the avatar of our General? Or am I just blind? As it stands I get someone that looks like KFC's Colonel Sanders almost every time. 

I kind of want my avatar to look more like Francis Barlow and less Albert Johnson .

[xIGuNDoCIx]

Please bring back the ability to "draw" your units movement paths!

[Lincolns Mullet]

You can draw unit paths by selecting a brigade and holding left mouse button, then drag a path to your destination. Hope this helps!

[Legioneod]

Another thing I'd like to see is custom difficulty, that way I can have +25 gold/recruits and make my enemy harder or normal without sacrificing the enemy strength.

 

I posted this on steam, just thought I should add it here as well.

Love:
-Maps
-Customization
-Ai

Things I would liked added:
-Dynamic Sandbox Campaign (A campaign mode to where I can plan out my own campaigns, battles, etc and have a greater effect on the outcome of the war)
-Customizable Uniforms
-More Battles (Major and Minor. Things like more of the Seven Days Battles, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, etc.)

Hate:
-No dynamic sandbox campaign
-Buggy AI (somtimes)

Extra:
-I'd like to see a custom diffuclty added, that way I can choose how much gold/recruits I get and how hard the enemy is.

-Dynamic Battles, battles that don't follow a script or anything but can last a long time. You could set your own phases and attack plans and when the timer ends you could go to the next day or withdraw.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Legioneod

[Admiral666]

In addition to the above: The game doesn't function properly on a 4k display. The selection box only works in one corner of the screen. Interface scaling would also be EXTREMELY welcome here. Swapping to regular HD resolutions does not work either--mouse doesn't know where it is.

And:

-Borderless Windowed

-Contour lines are a big miss from UGG. The alternate camera view doesn't do nearly as good a job of giving me an idea of the true topography.

-Dynamic campaigns would be a fantastic addition, and massively increase the replay value.

-Same goes for greater or full control over the stages of battle, deployments, etc. Obviously these two are far from easy to implement -- perhaps expansions?

-I agree with the flanking comments. It's rather annoying when 150 skirmishers 'flank' a 2000 man brigade, or my batteries are 'flanked from the rear' because of a slight movement when they are switching to another target.

 

Overall, though, I'm having an obscenely good time. Started playing at circa 4pm yesterday, and barely looked up until 2am--and that's only because Malvern Hill was such a bitter tragedy. Loving it!

 

[akd]

First take on the new presentation: beautiful, but I think the "top" view should have contours and place names, while the "depth" view should have these hidden.

Edited November 18, 2016 by akd

[LongstreetJohnson]

Hi, first of all congratulations on the Early Acess and a great base of a game. 

I have voiced some of my concern on the general forum, please take a look.

And any feedback on the subject would be much appriciated.

 

Managed to build up a confederate army of 68000 troughout the campaign with careful planning and micro before the battle of Antietam, and it scales the AI forces up to 140 000!! infantery and 400 guns.

I lost the battle  ended up killing 79000 loosing 46000 and the whole campaign ended, because of the 100 rep drop. 

Please try to find a solution instead of  AI force scaling.

 

Thread: AI forces scale with your forces.

Edited November 19, 2016 by LongstreetJohnson
More feedback

[Alex.Reiter]

Maybe written already , but here I come: unit movement adjusting should be more precise,  it seems to be little cluncky now. Also, troop direction positioning Should get some fine tuning. 

[Col_Kelly]

20 hours ago, LongstreetJohnson said:

Hi, first of all congratulations on the Early Acess and a great base of a game. 

I have voiced some of my concern on the general forum, please take a look.

And any feedback on the subject would be much appriciated.

 

Managed to build up a confederate army of 68000 troughout the campaign with careful planning and micro before the battle of Antietam, and it scales the AI forces up to 140 000!! infantery and 400 guns.

I lost the battle  ended up killing 79000 loosing 46000 and the whole campaign ended, because of the 100 rep drop. 

Please try to find a solution instead of  AI force scaling.

 

Thread: AI forces scale with your forces.

The campaign ended because the early acces doesnt go any further, new battles will be added over time. Would have been the same if you had won. Overall the point of the game is not to win every battle, sometimes its better to retreat and admit a reasonable defeat rather than trying to win at all costs. (Although I admit it's hard to retreat from what is now the last battle of the campaign)

They try to represent the historical ratio for each battle, at Antietam the confederates fought agaisnt an ennemy that was almost twice superior in numbers and that is reflected in the campaign. At Gaine's mill or Bull Run you would not have been dealt such bad odds. 

[Alex.Reiter]

I am playing union campaign now, and it is strange that in some battles , when time limit ens, so ends the fight. I know , it have to end somehow, but it is quite odd that you have intensive battle going on with thousands of soldiers and maybe some melee; then game snaps to the summary screen.  

[LongstreetJohnson]

3 minutes ago, Col_Kelly said:

The campaign ended because the early acces doesnt go any further, for now. Would have been the same if you had won. Overall the point of the game is not to win every battle, sometimes its better to retreat and admit a reasonable defeat rather than trying to win at all costs. 

They try to represent the historical ratio for each battle, at Antietam the confederates fought agaisnt an ennemy that was almost twice superior in numbers and that is reflected in the campaign. At Gaine's mill or Bull Run you would not have been dealt such bad odds. 

This is not my point  I love loosing a great game, as i am all for historical odds (to some degree), but if you are going to drag history into a game as an argument, dont forget that army frontage,combat width,supplies etc works very differently in real life.

 Example ingame the AI pushed 40 000 men over a small stonebridge to attack my 3000 men where in reality this would be an equal if not favor the defender no matter the numbers. So dragging lines to the real battle could be wrong from a games perspective.

Anyways as i said this is not my point you just sidelined me there for a bit. Check my post in general to see my point about scaling.

[Legioneod]

I'd much prefer a dynamic campaign where everything has an effect. Previous battles should give have an affect on the enemy and his ability to fight. Battles should affect  supplies, manpower, etc. Not just for your side but for the enemy also.

Historical battles are nice but that's why we have a historical battles section. In campaign I want it to be unique and dynamic.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Legioneod