UGCW Feedback v1.0+

[A. P. Hill]

14 hours ago, civsully1 said:

Appreciate the continued improvements guys!

+1.

And I would still ask for a revisit of First Bull Run/Manassas, and so fix the HUD,  that the Confederate side can select forces by unit as opposed to mostly unorganized individual units.

[LAVA]

The other day, I was playing as the Union on Distress Call legendary skill level with 3 brigades of infantry and 2 batteries of artillery. 2 brigades of infantry started the game and I was reinforced by an infantry brigade and the 2 batteries. Just as one of the artillery batteries was entering the battle (I could see the unit tab but not all of the battery) I clicked on it and tried to give it a direction arrow to move along. The arrow that appeared was straight up a short way along the side of the battlefield and it duly marched off the battlefield.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Yeah, had this in EA with an infantry brigade...

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Short feedback on recent AI changes: Just recorded the Battle of Thouroughfare Gap, minor engagement, for my Union Let's Play. I played this battle a few times and almost always the AI charges straight for my centre, getting encircled by my flanking units. This changed after the last patches. I noticed the AI went more for my flanks, trying to push them out of the woods. But this time...first the AI tried the same and seemed to push on my north western flank. After its skirmishers had been beaten back though, it ACTUALLY CHANGED PLANS(!!!), moved all but one infantry brigade and the skirmishers to the centre and charged up the road, catching me by surprise. I was able to hold this charge but there was a second wave pushing my now weaker south eastern flank, driving it back and actually routing one brigade. Took me some time to get my line in back in shape and for a while the battle was quite chaotic. I liked this extremly, excellent work!

Edited November 6, 2017 by Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf

[StechHopor]

Hey all! Love love love the game! Can't stop playing it!

I had a few suggestions/features that I would love to have in the game if they are possible.

1. The ability to man fortifications with more than one unit at a time. I avoid putting troops in at least half of the fortifications in the game, even when defending the ground around them. It is often more efficient to just stand in the trees next to the fortifications, unless they are really good. It always seems that they spread one infantry brigade out to cover about 3 brigades worth of space on the front. This often leads to that one brigade being focused by 3-5 enemy brigades while only able to dish out 1 brigades worth of damage. The result is that your unit breaks relatively quickly and deals less damage to your opponent than he does to you. If it is possible, it would be cool to be able to man a specific fortification with 2 or 3 infantry brigades. Maybe you could just select several infantry brigades and right click on the fortification with them and the game would place them appropriately along the fortification? That way you could maintain a somewhat equivalent amount of firepower and your units would not be subjected to fire from up to 5 enemy brigades at once, instead spreading the damage out among several units.
2. It would be nice to have more control over when your cannons hold fire and when they open up. What would really help me in my cannon control would be having perhaps 3 buttons on the action bar of a particular cannon brigade. They would be something like 1) Enable/disable grapeshot 2) Enable/disable canister shot 3) Enable/disable round shot (or something like that... not a big expert on the types of cannon fire). This way, I could tell my parrot guns and other long range cannons to only target brigades at medium range and longer and tell my howitzers and napoleons to never use round shot, as it isn't a very good use of ammo and time.
3. It would also be nice to be able to tell at what respective ranges each cannon starts using a different kind of ammunition. It could be something simple like when you hover over the enable/disable round shot button (from suggestion #2), a portion of the cannon's arc of fire shown on the map would light up as red, corresponding to which section of its fire arc would use round shot or whatever shot type you hovered over.This would primarily help me to learn the nuances of each cannon and use them more effectively. I find myself having to look up artillery guides online a lot, as I cannot figure out how far/close to place cannons to the front line.

Anyway, just a few (albeit long winded) suggestions that may or may not be practical. Again, love the game! =)

[James Cornelius]

41 minutes ago, StechHopor said:

 

1. The ability to man fortifications with more than one unit at a time. I avoid putting troops in at least half of the fortifications in the game, even when defending the ground around them. It is often more efficient to just stand in the trees next to the fortifications, unless they are really good. It always seems that they spread one infantry brigade out to cover about 3 brigades worth of space on the front. This often leads to that one brigade being focused by 3-5 enemy brigades while only able to dish out 1 brigades worth of damage. The result is that your unit breaks relatively quickly and deals less damage to your opponent than he does to you. If it is possible, it would be cool to be able to man a specific fortification with 2 or 3 infantry brigades. Maybe you could just select several infantry brigades and right click on the fortification with them and the game would place them appropriately along the fortification? That way you could maintain a somewhat equivalent amount of firepower and your units would not be subjected to fire from up to 5 enemy brigades at once, instead spreading the damage out among several units.

Ideally I would ask for the ability to construct our own fortifications, particularly in a wooded area where it would be work of an hour or less for a regiment to throw up some abattis. This is particularly an issue in many areas where, like you point out, the fortifications are inferior to the trees behind them. 

 

But, I know that what complicates this is the hand-drawn nature of the map. This is the one area (flexibility) where some of the older hex-based games (Like CWG2) had an advantage because it was easier to modify terrain on the fly from both a development and customization standpoint.

 

That being the case, this is still the finest Civil War game on the market, and at least insofar as the specific areas of combat (tactics, historical map, etc) the finest one ever made. If there was a good (or at least better) strategic layer on top it would blow TW out of the water. As it is, when playing one of the new TW games I find myself getting frustrated because I can't make the units march exactly where I want!

 

If I've never said it before, @Nick Thomadis and his team should be incredibly proud of what they've done.

 

P.S. My only real complaint for something that could be easily fixed is that there are still Order of Battle and portrait errors for the historical battles. For example, Joe Hooker never had a beard at Antietam (but his portrait in game does) and there was no Major General William Harrow commanding an artillery battery at Gettysburg - but there was a Brigadier General William Harrow commanding a brigade in the 2nd Division, II Corps (my great-great-grandfather was a private in one of its regiments, the 15th MA) yet that brigade is named "Brooke" in all the Gettysburg battles.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Sir R. Calder of Southwick

[Nick Thomadis]

Gentlemen, there is a new patch released. Check it out!
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/patch-v109-finalizes-game-content-and-optimizes-ai

[quicksabre]

Congratulations on finalizing the game!  This has been one of the best games I've ever played, a real gem. Thank you for your dedication! Can't wait to try out the new AI.

[Poltava]

Big, big congratulation to the Devs! You got a real winner here, guys. 

I have been playing war games since the Seventies, believe me or not, and digital war games from their very inception in the Eighties. I want to say that Ultimate General is probably the very best game in its scale and scope I have ever played!!!! It is simply GREAT!

I look forward to the next instalment in what I hope will be a whole series of historical battlegames. 

The only suggestion I can think of is the addition of an editor, that will make it possible to add user-made content. That will increase the fan base even more. 

Congrats guys, keep it up! 

[LAVA]

I myself would like a sandbox mode where I could take my army at any stage of the Campaign, pick a map and have the game generate random objectives and of course, an opposition army. 

A sandbox mode would increase replay ability x 10, IMO, and I get to play random battles with my beloved army without consequence on my campaign.

I have never played a war game with such wonderful RPG features. This sets UGCW completely apart from other war games and the more the devs can capitalize on this the more devoted a fan base they will develop.

[Captain Quicksave]

Thanks for taking up all my free time. Seriously, you guys have delivered solid GOLD! Sure, I'm predisposed to like this game, veteran of the old "Rebel Yell" boardgame and Sid's stab at the Battle of Gettysburg on the PC, but this stuff is getting out of hand. Massive effort guys. Can't wait to see what you get up to NeXT.

[mrm5117]

I just wanted to say here that I absolutely love this game and can't stop playing it.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

I urged them for months to do this, they finally did. The biggest german games magazine, GameStar, has finally tested UGCV and they like it a lot. Yes, 79% does not sound that good. But there is a reason most AAA titles get rather harsh valuations in Germany. Even the most revered titles like Half-Life 2 or Medieval 2: Total War only got 91 or 89%. 79% is very, very good for a small independent game like UGCV. Great work! http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/ultimate-general-civil-war/wertung/54382.html

[Blothorn]

I am very impressed by the realism, given the fairly simple combat model--morale is important and nuanced, etc. One QoL issue that has caused me several ragequits thus far: hard map edges are problematic but hard to do away with for units already on the field, but cause problems when reinforcing mid-battle: multiple battles now I have had cavalry suffer severe losses because infantry spawned almost on top of them (in open ground, so they should have seen them a long way off). Two possibilities: set a map edge for in-play units inside the edge of the displayed map (for battles with in-battle reinforcements) but spawn reinforcements at the outer map edge, or have reinforcements arrive on a not-displayed extension of the map, calculate visibility to them, and show the player an icon on the edge of the map when they are visible.

[quicksabre]

On 1/9/2018 at 1:07 PM, Blothorn said:

I am very impressed by the realism, given the fairly simple combat model--morale is important and nuanced, etc. One QoL issue that has caused me several ragequits thus far: hard map edges are problematic but hard to do away with for units already on the field, but cause problems when reinforcing mid-battle: multiple battles now I have had cavalry suffer severe losses because infantry spawned almost on top of them (in open ground, so they should have seen them a long way off). Two possibilities: set a map edge for in-play units inside the edge of the displayed map (for battles with in-battle reinforcements) but spawn reinforcements at the outer map edge, or have reinforcements arrive on a not-displayed extension of the map, calculate visibility to them, and show the player an icon on the edge of the map when they are visible.

That seems like a good idea - this game is 'complete' but maybe they'll implement it for the next one!

The two QoL additions I'd like to see are the ability to drag formations - so I can move a column of brigades down a road or swing a whole division in an arc, for example - and the ability to choose whether to send a unit by the fastest way (down roads, over fields, etc.) or by the straightest way (if you want them to approach from a particular angle or avoid certain parts of the map).

[cairnsy44]

I'm still hoping to have the double John Gibbons fixed. There are some other notable Union Generals they could use to replace one of them. (Kearny...cough cough....)

 

[zapadnik]

Hello, Game Labs!

Many thanks for Ultimate General: Civil War! Spent over 70 happy hours in the Union campaign. It`s really better than your previous "Gettysburg" though it was also good.

I hope that you will continue release of new wargames. May be you will make a strategy devoted to Anglo-American War 1812 or Anglo-Boer War 1899?  

But still think that several things in the game can be improved (even after patch 1.0.9.): 

1) Changing PoW for 1000 recruits after the battle seems unfair and silly because the amount of new recruits doesn`t depend on the amount of the prisoners i take (600 or 6 thousands). And honestly I prefer not recruits but 1 000 new rifles or one good general. Recruits imho are the most useless resource in the game  

2) Though AI in the game is much stronger in Total War:Napoleon but in several side missions AI (for CSAThoroughfare ) forgot about his units making them freeze during the mission (especially in Kettle Run and Thoroughfare Gap).

3) Russian translation of the post-mission briefs are awful  ("... после сражения в месте "Переправа через реку" , wrong translation of the famous quote of Alexander during Gettysburg on the loading screen and so on).

4)  I don`t understand why in  Battle of Chickamauga for US the draw (which is very difficult to get) has caused enormous penalty for my reputation. It`s unfair imho.

 Anyway, thank you and good luck!

Edited January 22, 2018 by zapadnik

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

On 21.1.2018 at 10:22 PM, zapadnik said:

Hello, Game Labs!

Many thanks for Ultimate General: Civil War! Spent over 70 happy hours in the Union campaign. It`s really better than your previous "Gettysburg" though it was also good.

I hope that you will continue release of new wargames. May be you will make a strategy devoted to Anglo-American War 1812 or Anglo-Boer War 1899?  

But still think that several things in the game can be improved (even after patch 1.0.9.): 

1) Changing PoW for 1000 recruits after the battle seems unfair and silly because the amount of new recruits doesn`t depend on the amount of the prisoners i take (600 or 6 thousands). And honestly I prefer not recruits but 1 000 new rifles or one good general. Recruits imho are the most useless resource in the game  

2) Though AI in the game is much stronger in Total War:Napoleon but in several side missions AI (for CSAThoroughfare ) forgot about his units making them freeze during the mission (especially in Kettle Run and Thoroughfare Gap).

3) Russian translation of the post-mission briefs are awful  ("... после сражения в месте "Переправа через реку" , wrong translation of the famous quote of Alexander during Gettysburg on the loading screen and so on).

4)  I don`t understand why in  Battle of Chickamauga for US the draw (which is very difficult to get) has caused enormous penalty for my reputation. It`s unfair imho.

 Anyway, thank you and good luck!

1) Believe me, for the CSA these are extremly important. And you get 1000 recruits for 600 POWs because the CSA soldiers are better. Because CSA players exploited the mechanic they limited it to 1000.
2) Never experienced that.
3) Ok, I only played in English. xD maybe I should have checked the German translation...
4) Maybe because the real battle was kind of a draw, too. Yes, the Confederates won...but they (or more precisely Bragg) did not exploit his victory. A draw would have had pretty much the same consequences as the CSA victory had.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Just asking...since when is my avatar ins this game?! Just noticed one of my brigades is commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Willich...

[LAntorcha]

Ashamed by discovering this awesome game, late like a year or so. Totally love this by each angle!

I assume all we do with 2-3 exceptions, and when we ask for PORN is just cause we PORN ourselves PORNING with this PORNY game.

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by LAntorcha
May I say PORN in this forum?

[Nick Thomadis]

New hotfix patch is out!
You can read the content here:
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/patch-v110-hotfix

Restart Steam to download it fast.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Does this mean the Artillery perk for 50% more supply does work now? It is not specifically mentioned in the patch notes.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf

[Nick Thomadis]

13 minutes ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Does this mean the Artillery perk for 50% more supply does work now? It is not specifically mentioned in the patch notes.

This worked ok. The strategy perk was not properly enabled. The ammo boost of the Strategy perk was not given to all corps units but only to those inside General's radius.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

It does?!  Since when? I'm honest, I checked this the last time under 1.07 or 1.08, and there it did not work, batteries with the perk ran out of ammo just as fast as batteries without it.

[pandakraut]

I tested the artillery logistics trait repeatedly on 1.09 and never saw it work. It does appear to be working on 1.10 though.