Interactive Campaign Map

[ari56]

New here but have been playing this game Since Thanksgiving and Great job. Something that takes me back to the old 1998 Civil War Generals for the most part. I really like the in game battles and the creating troops. There have been some new improvements over winning battles and scaling against the AI. I was wondering though if it is at all possible to add a more campaign free movement style. If anyone has ever played Ageod American Civil War. They have a campaign that you can move and attack anywhere that is possible. I am guessing that would not be possible. But would be insane. The other thing is division commanders. Is it me or are they useless?

[Perkon]

It wont happen, why? Because the game that you mention is open, you do what you want to do, while Ultimate General Civil War isnt, you fight skirmishes, and battles in fixed order, one after another.

Impossible to add, really, it just doesnt fit the game, at all.

[Wright29]

As i understand it, Division commanders will affect the Command rating of each brigade under them. The command rating is a function of the Brigade, Division, and Corps commander stats. So while a good Major General commanding a brigade may give an excellent Command rating to a single brigade, he would give multiple brigades a bonus when he is division commander. 

[Seleukos of Olympia]

The problem with expanding the scope of the game to allow battles anywhere is that it would require either procedurally generated battlefields or the painstacking drawing of all possible battlefields. The first approach would require a big change in the graphical design of the game and a different approach to programming it than they have now, while the second would (I imagine) be prohibitively time-consuming. I agree though, it would be pretty neat.

[Legioneod]

17 hours ago, Perkon said:

It wont happen, why? Because the game that you mention is open, you do what you want to do, while Ultimate General Civil War isnt, you fight skirmishes, and battles in fixed order, one after another.

Impossible to add, really, it just doesnt fit the game, at all.

Not impossible to add but I doubt they will. It's unfortunate that the campaign is so linear, it really limits the replay ability of the game. Dynamic campaign is what is needed imo in order to have alot of replay value.

[Col_Kelly]

Its quite impossible now for sure. Maybe for a later game... I must admit that such a feature has been trotting in my head for a while.

[James Cornelius]

I suggested this very thing when UG:G was released. It would be a massive effort, but with technologies as straightforward as Google Earth, it could be done. It would allow such a tremendous level of strategy as you move an army, subdivided into its corps, and attempt to maneuver to gain terrain advantage. What a pleasure that would be! If you were the Union you might be forced to attack by orders from the War Department despite being on poor ground, etc...

 

If only!

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 1/6/2017 at 10:55 AM, ari56 said:

New here but have been playing this game Since Thanksgiving and Great job. Something that takes me back to the old 1998 Civil War Generals for the most part. I really like the in game battles and the creating troops. There have been some new improvements over winning battles and scaling against the AI. I was wondering though if it is at all possible to add a more campaign free movement style. If anyone has ever played Ageod American Civil War. They have a campaign that you can move and attack anywhere that is possible. I am guessing that would not be possible. But would be insane. The other thing is division commanders. Is it me or are they useless?

You ask a good question. 

But think about Total War where you have a strategic map and a tactical map. Both are ok, but neither is outstanding. 

This avoids that and focuses specifically on tactical combat and takes it to an entirely new level. 

[waldopbarnstormer]

I would like to see in the near term some branching scenarios to add some variation and to account for winning battles that were historically lost for example the union winning Fredericksburg leads to richmond, or csa winning at Shiloh leads to battle in Kentucky. Or you could move scenarios forward so routing the union at antietam leads on to Gettysburg.

[RoverGrover]

12 minutes ago, waldopbarnstormer said:

I would like to see in the near term some branching scenarios to add some variation and to account for winning battles that were historically lost for example the union winning Fredericksburg leads to richmond, or csa winning at Shiloh leads to battle in Kentucky. Or you could move scenarios forward so routing the union at antietam leads on to Gettysburg.

Dislike the very open map idea, but I do like this idea. Alternate battles and branching paths based on winning vs losing/drawing would be very fun while still keeping it more "on track".  

[Wright29]

I'm an avid Total War and Paradox player. They're awesome because they start you in hisotrical scenarios and you have complete control over it. Problem is that you very rapidly get away from history. Which can be nice, but it's not in line with this game. The goal of UGCW is to have your army put into historically accurate scenarios. You don't make the strategic decisions because you would try very hard to avoid history's mistakes. The closest thing would be to have branching scenarios like in UGG. Not too possible in a game of larger scope like this one though. 

[Col_Kelly]

Branching could be interesting but leaves the problem of having many scenarios entering a 'dark zone' that most players would not even visit. Even more so a succesful player would be punished by being given a much shorter campaign (ie. by getting to richmond as soon as 1862). 

[Slobodan]

On other hand, I personally would not like to end up loosing campaign as CSA (or play desperate last battles in 1864) even that I managed to win every single campaign battle with crushing loses to Union. Some branching would be needed in the end I think