gwgardner Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 What a great game. So much good, but there are some features that make it impossible for me to play extensively. Right now it's just an arcade game. I personally would like a more historical simulation. Some people don't want a historical simulation. I get that. But for those that do, I think the following are needed: 1) Capability for a much reduced speed of play. 2) The fixed formations feature is a huge abstraction. We need column, the various line formations, realistic skirmisher formations, cavalry mount and dismount, artillery limber and unlimber. 3) One of the most irksome features of the game currently is the existence of completely ahistorical skirmisher formations. Please get rid of them. When I play right now, I just hide those units off in the back and never touch them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeK Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 What a great game. So much good, but there are some features that make it impossible for me to play extensively. Right now it's just an arcade game. I personally would like a more historical simulation. Some people don't want a historical simulation. I get that. But for those that do, I think the following are needed: 1) Capability for a much reduced speed of play. 2) The fixed formations feature is a huge abstraction. We need column, the various line formations, realistic skirmisher formations, cavalry mount and dismount, artillery limber and unlimber. 3) One of the most irksome features of the game currently is the existence of completely ahistorical skirmisher formations. Please get rid of them. When I play right now, I just hide those units off in the back and never touch them. A fair number of people found the initial pace too slow. I thought it was appropriate. Having a toggle was suggested. The fixed brigade formations is a functional abstraction. The brigade and regimental commanders would be disposing their troops as they saw fit, most likely resulting in the double line of regiments. Rarely would an army or corps commander reach down to dispose an infantry regiment. So I see it as on the whole and on balance realistic for this level of command. Also, I it would make an enormous difference to the effectiveness and speed of the AI to need to consider permutations of internal brigade dispositions on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawke Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Also, I it would make an enormous difference to the effectiveness and speed of the AI to need to consider permutations of internal brigade dispositions on both sides. I don't think that's necessarily true, if memory serves me Sid Meier's Gettysburg had different formation options per regiment (and brigade level) and that came out 17 years ago. I certainly think having a basic column formation is a great idea, enabling you to move faster but you also take greater casualties if you come under fire. Also limbering and unlimbering for artillery would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GShock Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I'm sure we'll see a lot of these things come true in the near future. Hey... it's Monday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Fair Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 GShock, The design platform for UGG is the tablet. Your optimism on the "near future" does not align with the tablet design goal and seems a bit out of line with the UGG dev team vision that they've been posting for the last 11 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Fair Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 gwgardner, Not sure why you are complaining about the skirmishers as "ahistorical" when there are far more egregious deviations from history in UGG. This includes the implementation of the artillery, videttes, cavalry, and skirmishers. Bottom line - if history is your goal UGG has a long, long, long way to go. Game companies are interested in sales more than history. At best history is an inconvenient framework for a game. PS - my preference would be to play a historical simulation of the ACW. UGG is in the ballpark - but there is tension between what the design team views as "fun" (e.g., videttes) and history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don't Escrow Taxes Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 well look i think we all agree we would rather a game that gave tactical control on the regimental level and you could do the fun stuff that was in SMG but this is still a pretty doggone good game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myes! Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 well look i think we all agree we would rather a game that gave tactical control on the regimental level... What an amazingly stupid thing to say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now