Victory matters(?)

[romellos]

Hello there gents, cheers for this aesthetically-pleasant game.

Well, the title speaks for itself. July 1st 19:07 I achieve epic victory. Hurray! Press the Continue button = Oak Ridge is no longer mine. I thought that "armies’ condition and positioning on the map are saved". Am I missing anything?

 

[Riekopo]

I've noticed this issue too. I don't know if it's a bug or bad design.

[MikeC]

The game is a chain of branching scenarios.  While there are a large number of scenarios present, they can't account for every possibility I think.  The game will try to place he brigades in approximate locations of where they were in the last scenario and retain most of the characteristics.  However, sometimes the game doesn't have a scenario scripted exactly as a battle ended.

[Husserl]

This is not a bug. In some scenarios the armies may withdraw from forward and exposed points that have captured, for a better deployment and defense in next battle.

[Riekopo]

This is not a bug. In some scenarios the armies may withdraw from forward and exposed points that have captured, for a better deployment and defense in next battle.

Well doesn't that defeat the purpose of making your own choices then?

[GShock]

Perhaps this is supposed to be tied to the strategic situation at the end of the battle.

 

If you take huge losses, even if you hold, the next morning you're overrun by superior forces and so you switch to better position in next battle but that ought to be clarified.

I am actually excited to see the game in the making being molded into something as it dynamically evolves around the players' reports and requests (poll in other thread).

 

Very excited.

[David Fair]

So the design team has designed a game where the game is the ultimate general?

I’m baffled by the logic that I choose to fight and take a location only to have the game decide that I’ve taken too many losses and should give up a VP location. Note that often when this happens my losses are less than the AI’s losses so the logic and explanation are both fundamentally flawed.

This design decision turns UGG into a “paint by numbers” tactical game where the game has more control than the “ultimate general” who buys and plays the game. This is a FUBAR decision IMHO.

If you are going to design a game driven by VP locations then let the players – NOT THE GAME – decide what locations to take and hold.

[GShock]

Only the explanation is flawed, not the logic. If you take a hill but your division takes 60% losses, or your arty has no ammo, you're better off go back to the main body of the army or you'll be overrun the next day.

I'm just making an example but I agree this logic must be better explained. Since there are variables involved with the VP, it's better that the game explains what happens at the end of a scenario.

In view of possible adjustments, in the future, we must assume the only FIXED situation is day 1.

 

From day 2 everything may change and not necessarily the way it went in the real history. Albeit, even at the first day things may run different if Doubleday arrives later or arrives a bit more on the West. All these things would work but that logic must be explained. If you lose a VP on a scenario's decision this must be explained. It's not necessarily wrong but it has to be explained thoroughlly. Since you got multiple VPs, you might want to decide to go for just the easy one and take less losses and in this case you must hold it. Again, explanation before and after scenario load solves it all.

[Harnis]

If you take a hill but your division takes 60% losses, or your arty has no ammo, you're better off go back to the main body of the army or you'll be overrun the next day.

should that decision not be up to the player? If I want to overextend my army and have a unit pushed too far ahead with too many casualties, surely that should be my choice to make, or if the brigade routs because their morale drops.

 

The game does try to keep brigades in their approximate positions, but sometimes it does do annoying things like that.

[David Fair]

GShock,

 

My point is that sometimes the game takes VP locations and key terrain arbitrarily- regardless of the casualties.  You are fabricating explanations/excuses by stating “60% casualties”.  Often the game moves forces even when my casualties have been less than the opponents.

 

The Player should have a choice – as they do after the 1^st Phase – to decide to hold or abandon VP locations.  Currently the game exercises too much freedom to make these decisions.  For example, it is not unusual to take Culp’s Hill in one Phase only to have the game allocate Culp’s Hill to the opposition in the next Phase.

 

This has little to do with casualties – and very much to do with flawed logic in the game design and flow of the game from Phase to Phase.

[GShock]

It is at all possible, David.

 

I just said lacking explanations on how this "arbitrariety" works there could also be a logical reason that is not flawed.

I made an example on how a GOOD logic might work behind such decision but you may very well be right, I have no idea at this time. I am still at Day 1.

[David Fair]

I'm on month 11 and have been testing UGG for almost a year.  There are frustrating aspects of this game that remain unresolved.

[GShock]

I know, I've met some myself and already posted in pvt about some critical features I think the DEVs should be looking at.

[MikeK]

This is not a bug. In some scenarios the armies may withdraw from forward and exposed points that have captured, for a better deployment and defense in next battle.

As did both sides on the first day, having in mind in particular that only part of their army had come up.

[GShock]

The conditions under which this may happen should be made public and explained in and out of the game.

 

"This may happen" is not an explanation "this happens when X and Y conditions are met" is an explanation. The logical process behind the way next scenario begins should be thoroughlly explained because it may imply choices on behalf of the players. With multiple objectives, the choice would be to relinquish one and save the troops if that obj. was lost at the beginning of the next day.

 

Not questioning the logic (whichever it is, since we don't know it atm), it just should be explained in the utmost detail.

[Husserl]

Let me rephrase my answer because I think that it was misunderstood. As noted "In some scenarios the armies may withdraw from forward and exposed points that have captured, for a better deployment and defense in next battle.". The "may" was not for this occasion where always the Union will withdraw from Oak Ridge. Oak is too exposed and surrounded from the west, north and east. Also it is far from the Cemetery where the Army of the Potomac is being deployed (and there are portions still en route). Ewell has an open way to attack Culp's hill (a decision that historically could have changed the course of the battle but never made by Ewell).

 

However, in other battles this may not happen (here goes the "may"). This is determined mostly from the current situation and the overall strategy of each side. It would be difficult to note in details in which of the 80+ battles this may happen or not and why. Moreover, it would spoil the tactical challenges that UG:G offers to the player.  

[GShock]

Thanks for the answer Husserl.

It would be a good idea if this was specified in the scenario so that at the beginning of the battle, players know why it happened.

 

I know there was a logic, I've always known, but I think the players would like the game to tell them why it their army withdrew from the hardly conquered objectives. You said "may" it means it's possible that it doesn't happen but when it does happen, the player should be told why it happened.

 

In other words, the variable used, at the end of the previous battle should be declared before the following battle begins in the scenario introduction.

[David Fair]

So the game is the “Ultimate General” because it has some arbitrary ability to, “…[determine] mostly from the current situation and the overall strategy of each side” and change the disposition of forces.

 

Excellent summary Husserl.

 

I’m certain I don’t understand why having the player as the Ultimate General would, “…spoil the tactical challenges that UGG offers to the player.”

 

What this really means is that the game makes you replay taking the same locations tactically in multiple phases – which destroys the flow and continuity of the battle strategically.  Culp’s Hill & the Round Tops are the primary locations where the game exercises too much liberty in deviating from the player’s strategy and the transition of the state from the previous phase.

 

Essentially this relegates the player to playing a series of tactical battles.

 

I understand that you’ve made a game focused on tactics. 

 

But I’m certain that this level of arbitrary game interference and lack of continuity from Phase to Phase make the game a “paint by numbers” game strategically.

[GShock]

I think I am finally understanding what you mean, David.

 

There's probably a set of variables in-built that try to force the player onto a specific path for the evolution of the scenario that probably don't take fully into account the what-if philosophy the game has been built upon.

 

History and "what if" can't coexist: Day 2 can be historical only if day 1 was.

 

I guess this will be straightened out in the near future.

[David Fair]

I'm not so certain - I've been watching the armies teleporting from place to place between phases for the last 11 months (West of Gettysburg in one phase, then in the next phase East of Gettysburg - UGG doesn't flow properly).

 

I think this is just the game design.  A series of tactical battles.

[Randall C. Reed]

Let's not split hairs here. There is something BROKEN with the scenario system in this game. When you fight a battle, the marketing spiel says that the next scenario starts where the last one left off. That is simply not true. I don't know what the mumbo-jumbo is, but it has nothing to do with "branching scenarios" or what the AI does to the game between scenarios. The AI does nothing but store casualty and morale values and reset to a specified set of unit coordinates for the next scenario's starting point. I feel like we are being told "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" in a Wizard of Oz remake. If we had any kind of post-game snapshot capability, we could see in detail what is being done or not done in the AI reset. As it is, I don't have the ability or the time to play a set of experiments to track what happens to a decimated unit between scenarios.

 

What we have here is a good design, a good game engine, married to a questionable set of scenarios that are based on an illogical terrain-based "VICTORY POINT" system that flies in the face of an otherwise attrition-based victory evaluation system and a bunch of disjointed, ahistorical, "what if" scenarios. The lack of Campaign Game is a deafening omission. I don't know why this situation exists, but I suspect that it has a lot to do with the marketing decision to go after the mobile device market and thereby let the hardcore gamers swing in the breeze.

 

I believe that was an unfortunate marketing decision that has had a very big impact on the game design and its implementation. There are so many more things that could be added to the game in the nature of AAR and "instant replay" features so useful to the aesthetic appreciation of the game that can't be considered because they simply will not fit into the size constraints of a mobile device.

 

Solution? I really don't think there is any fixing the current scenario situation. However, scenarios are always being tweaked and fine-tuned in any game design. I would strongly recommend to the MANAGEMENT team that they instruct the DEVELOPMENT team to create parallel tracks for development of a mobile platform and a gamer platform. And with the gamer platform, include a simple, yet complete, set of historical scenarios and a campaign game with robust post-game analysis features. Scenario #1: July 1 AM; Scenario #2: July 1 PM; Scenario #3: July 2 AM; Scenario #4: July 2 PM; Scenario #5: July 3 AM; Scenario #6: July 3 PM; Scenario #7: July 4 AM; Scenario #8: July 3 Cavalry Battle East; Scenario #9: July 3 Cavalry Battle South; Scenario #10: Complete Campaign Game; Scenario #11 through #15: Carefully selected "what if" situations that produce good game play experiences for the users.   It is not rocket science; just good old-fashioned Game Design 101.

[Randall C. Reed]

Oak is too exposed and surrounded from the west, north and east. Also it is far from the Cemetery where the Army of the Potomac is being deployed (and there are portions still en route). Ewell has an open way to attack Culp's hill (a decision that historically could have changed the course of the battle but never made by Ewell).

 

However, in other battles this may not happen (here goes the "may"). This is determined mostly from the current situation and the overall strategy of each side. It would be difficult to note in details in which of the 80+ battles this may happen or not and why. Moreover, it would spoil the tactical challenges that UG:G offers to the player.  

 

I think your logic is very flawed: Unless you're a graduate of the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks PA and have walked the Gettysburg battlefield as per their Gettysburg Staff Ride Briefing Book, I would question your ability to make this instant tactical analysis via the AI in the game. There are simply too many intangibles. EXACTLY what are you going to let the game players decide? To me, your logic is bad because the players are the "chain of command" and should be making decisions (for better or worse) that Gen. Ewell did or did not make. The game is called Ultimate General, remember? So, let the players be the generals, not the AI.

 

And I would question the purpose for creating 80+ scenarios when you have done an inadequate job of covering the basics. 80 bad game scenarios does not outweigh a half dozen excellent ones. That is what the designer is for: To separate the wheat from the chaff and present the game player with the genius of his inspired design skills.

 

What do you mean when you talk about the "overall strategy for each side" during a game? The answer to that is dirt simple: Destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. But UGG is not a strategic-level game. It is a tactical or, at best, grand tactical, contest. As such, it is a game of maneuver and attrition. Dirt simple. The VP system that determines victory by capturing specific high terrain features is arbitrary at best and pointless at its worst. You have over-thought and overcomplicated the entire game scenario system and your rationale for why it is the way it is is most unconvincing.