Post your most wanted sequel to ultimate general no matter how insane they are.

[guidon101]

UG: Civil War with a proper campaign map ala TW or The Blue and the Grey (1993)

 

 

[veji1]

In that sense the ultimate fantasy would be to be able to use UG as a battle mod for a game like Ageod's American Civil War....

[James Roberts]

Co-op multi-player would be fun.

[JaM]

On 10/24/2017 at 1:34 AM, jekct1212 said:

I'm pretty convinced its gonna be Napoleon. Hopefully it'll cover the whole era not just one campaign but it'll still be cool either way!

 

It definitely gives a lot of material, multiple campaigns, different sides, different Generals...

[Zajuts149]

18 hours ago, jekct1212 said:

I agree totally, I also think there are enough major battles and small skirmishes to fill the campaign. There could be a cool guerilla mechanic.

The Peninsular Campaign was the reason I got into Napoleon: Total War in the first place, but it was disheartening to see how half-hearted it was made.

Still, the Peninsular War would have some great options, like 4 different factions(French, British, Spanish and Portuguese). Each faction would have different pros and cons. It would fit very well with the prestige concept, and getting equipment/leaders/troops/money for prestige points. For the British, it may be better to get muskets to give to allies or guerrillas, while the Portuguese would want British leaders to bolster their army. The French would want supplies or counter-guerrilla efforts, while manpower would be expensive.

In addition, it would be cool to have horses as a limited commodity, and use of horses on all artillery batteries. Then you'd have to decide whether you'd get 12 lb'er guns, or stick with your 6 lb'er guns to save the number of horses used. The strategic choices would be extensive.

[JaM]

Things i would like to see the most is Napoleonic era artillery effects.. with solid shots bouncing through units, making carnage with flanking shots against thin long lines of infantry.. different types of canister, light(musket bullets) for short range work, heavy for longer distances, etc...

 

 

[LAVA]

The Peninsular Campaign would indeed be interesting.

I think you could abstract the guerilla campaign by using the Army Organization feature. The British spend points to gain more guerilla activity which counters in a small way Politics (money and reserves) while the French spend points to protect their reinforcements. Guerilla activity could also have an effect on Logistics if you want to give it an even bigger impact.

Horses could very well be a pivotal point in the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps including them as reinforcements like men and money would be interesting. In the Civil War, towards the mid to late war, the availability of horses negatively impacted the South. The Russian invasion by the French devastated the best Cavalry in Europe. I think folks don't realize just how important replacement of horses were in both of these wars. Over a million horses were killed in the Civil War.

[JaM]

not just horses, but artillery as well... Napoleon lost most of his artillery in Russia.. they had to rebuild it quickly yet never returned into same level in latter years..

 

[LAVA]

Here is an interesting article about how Napoleon reconstituted his army's horses following the campaign of 1812:

https://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/France/Cavalry/Remounts/c_remounts1813.html

Notice, the article is concerned mostly with numbers and types of horses. There are only a couple vague remarks made concerning experience in battle (by both horse and rider). A horse needs a lot of training for combat as it generally is very skittish animal. The novice troopers not only lacked combat experience but also tactical training. We therefore see, in 1813, at the Battle of Leipzig that Marshal Murat used his cavalry in a huge column, which ultimately was defeated. I don't have a reference but I do believe this tactic was used because of the poor state of the French cavalry.

French cavalry were the best on the battlefield not because they were the best cavalrymen but because of their tactical discipline and usage. Stripped of battle hardened mounts and men, the losses of 1812 were never recuperated, even though in sheer numbers they were reconstituted.

I would imagine the same applied to the French artillery, but whereas I have read many accounts of the effects on the cavalry arm following 1812, I don't remember any analysis concerning the artillery arm. A good link to a general overview concerning that situation would be appreciated.

[veji1]

The french cavalry peaked in the war against Prussia in 1806, this is where the cavalry pursuit disintegrated on a strategic scale the prussian army after Iena/Auerstedt. This cavalry was the best it would ever be : it had training and drilling aplenty (in the camp de Boulogne an years prior to 1805), it had battle experience (the 1805 campaign), it had top quality mounts extracted as a peace condition from Austria and basically picked throughout the rhine confederation AND it hadn't suffered many losses yet.

The fall and winter 1806/1807 campaign already profoundly damaged that, culminating in the Eylau battle, and froom then on continuous "paper cuts" in Spain and more massive manoeuvering had rendered the cavalry less nimble and effective. The french cavalry starting the Russian campaign is enormous but it is already far from the peak it had reached 6 years prior.

[jekct1212]

The guerrilla feature could also let you decide weather you give captured French muskets, Brown Bess, or Bakers to the guerrillas.

[JaM]

14 minutes ago, jekct1212 said:

The guerrilla feature could also let you decide weather you give captured French muskets, Brown Bess, or Bakers to the guerrillas.

not just guerillas.. Russian units used very big variety of muskets.. The French Charleville musket was considered by Russians as the lightest and best made. The British muskets were slightly larger and more durable than the French weapons. The Prussian, Swedish and old Russian muskets were considered as unwieldy.

In the beginning of 1812 the armament of the Russian infantry included Russian and foreign weapons of 28 (!) different calibers.

[LAVA]

I think if they go with a Napoleonic themed game I would like to see some sort of allied organization incorporated as well.

So, for example, if you start with the French, at some time or another you get an allied Corps, which must be used during the campaign. You could have some small battles in which only the allied Corps could participate and major battles where you have to fill both French and allied Corps to be able to play.

Units seem fairly straightforward: Line Infantry, Light Infantry, Artillery, Horse Artillery, Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry.

Now here is a question.... how do you handle "Guard or Elite Units"? Perhaps you could have an option to upgrade a unit to a 3 star elite unit (or a single gold star), but I'm not sure if this should be done with money. Perhaps prestige?

[jekct1212]

10 minutes ago, JaM said:

not just guerillas.. Russian units used very big variety of muskets.. The French Charleville musket was considered by Russians as the lightest and best made. The British muskets were slightly larger and more durable than the French weapons. The Prussian, Swedish and old Russian muskets were considered as unwieldy.

In the beginning of 1812 the armament of the Russian infantry included Russian and foreign weapons of 28 (!) different calibers.

That's a very cool fact! Never knew that. This guerilla mechanic could work well for Rev War and War of 1812 too, with native americans and such

 

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Ok, after much consideration: UG: Napoleonic Wars and some DLCs like Peninsula Campaign and American Revolutionary War.

[jekct1212]

2 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Ok, after much consideration: UG: Napoleonic Wars and some DLCs like Peninsula Campaign and American Revolutionary War.

Anybody have an idea when the actual reveal will be?

[Friedrich]

9 hours ago, jekct1212 said:

Anybody have an idea when the actual reveal will be?

Spring, 2019.

[JaM]

Main difference between War for Independence and Napoleonic warfare  is also in overall scope.. what some might not realize, entire Brittish army in North America was just 30.000 strong, most battles were fought with very small forces.. At Saratoga for example, there were about 16000men together (7000 Brittish vs 9000 American) and losses were relatively quite small (450 dead British vs 100 dead American?)  At the other side, Napoleonic wars were a lot bigger, most battles were of large scale, comparable to Gettysburg, or even bigger.. War for Independence is actually just a small skirmish in comparation..  so technically, game would require slightly different scale or view to accommodate for a lot smaller units with War for Independence.

[veji1]

21 minutes ago, JaM said:

Main difference between War for Independence and Napoleonic warfare  is also in overall scope.. what some might not realize, entire Brittish army in North America was just 30.000 strong, most battles were fought with very small forces.. At Saratoga for example, there were about 16000men together (7000 Brittish vs 9000 American) and losses were relatively quite small (450 dead British vs 100 dead American?)  At the other side, Napoleonic wars were a lot bigger, most battles were of large scale, comparable to Gettysburg, or even bigger.. War for Independence is actually just a small skirmish in comparation..  so technically, game would require slightly different scale or view to accommodate for a lot smaller units with War for Independence.

Actually not most battles, but the ones we remember because they were so many of them ! If you look at any singular campaign (Austerlitz, Iean/Auerstedt, Eylau, etc...) we tend to focus on the  big singular clausewitzian battle but there were many smaller engagements varying for brigade size to corps size. You would have room for a very similar type of campaigning as in UGCW : 3/4 minor battles and then the big one.

[JaM]

True, yet regarding scale, even small actions during Napoeonic times like for example Napoleon campaign in Italy, was a lot larger in scale than entire American Revolutionary war.. deployed forces were typically just brigade size at most, sometimes even smaller, while casualties in those battles were quite small..  I would say you would have a problem to find single significant Napoleonic battle that would be of the same small scale, as the biggest American Revolutionary battle was..

 

so in that case, single unit would have to be battalion size, because usually entire force was just a mere brigade.. Imagine playing ACW battles where you have just 1-2 infantry brigades for most of battles..

 

Bloodiest battle of American Revolution was probably Bunker hill (411 British vs 1054 US dead) followed by  battle of Camden (1050 US dead vs 314 British).

In total, US lost 7174 men and 8241 was wounded during entire 8 years long American Revolution. (The Toll of Independence by  Howard Peckham (The University of Chicago Press, 1974)) British losses were not published but would be quite similar.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

5 hours ago, JaM said:

True, yet regarding scale, even small actions during Napoeonic times like for example Napoleon campaign in Italy, was a lot larger in scale than entire American Revolutionary war.. deployed forces were typically just brigade size at most, sometimes even smaller, while casualties in those battles were quite small..  I would say you would have a problem to find single significant Napoleonic battle that would be of the same small scale, as the biggest American Revolutionary battle was..

 

so in that case, single unit would have to be battalion size, because usually entire force was just a mere brigade.. Imagine playing ACW battles where you have just 1-2 infantry brigades for most of battles..

 

Bloodiest battle of American Revolution was probably Bunker hill (411 British vs 1054 US dead) followed by  battle of Camden (1050 US dead vs 314 British).

In total, US lost 7174 men and 8241 was wounded during entire 8 years long American Revolution. (The Toll of Independence by  Howard Peckham (The University of Chicago Press, 1974)) British losses were not published but would be quite similar.

As you say, the Americans lost roughly 7,000 men to death in combat; and around 17,000 to disease, most of whom had been captured by the British. I have always found that stat rather curious, but unsurprising given the conditions. 

[LAVA]

Each era has it's own challenges.

Napoleonic wise, armies were drawn to large open areas where cavalry could operate effectively. That is, of course, not to say that terrain was not important, because armies always sought the high ground. Think most folks are aware, for example, of the British deployment at Waterloo on the Mount-Saint-Jean escarpment.

So terrain wise, a Napoleonic game will play far differently, than a Civil War game. And there are tons of other differences as well.

As a miniatures player long ago, I found the to-and-fro dynamic found in the Civil War far more entertaining than the set piece bludgeoning of Napoleonic warfare.

So making a Napoleonic game which is not only true to history but actually fun to play is going to be a real challenge.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

12 minutes ago, LAVA said:

Each era has it's own challenges.

Napoleonic wise, armies were drawn to large open areas where cavalry could operate effectively. That is, of course, not to say that terrain was not important, because armies always sought the high ground. Think most folks are aware, for example, of the British deployment at Waterloo on the Mount-Saint-Jean escarpment.

So terrain wise, a Napoleonic game will play far differently, than a Civil War game. And there are tons of other differences as well.

As a miniatures player long ago, I found the to-and-fro dynamic found in the Civil War far more entertaining than the set piece bludgeoning of Napoleonic warfare.

So making a Napoleonic game which is not only true to history but actually fun to play is going to be a real challenge.

The Reverse Slope of the Hill, terrain which Arthur Wellsley had in his back pocket for decades. 

Miniatures rock, still my most favorite of all gaming modes. But finding players in this day and age is a bit of a challege, I'm afraid. 

[James Cornelius]

A little late to this, and while I think the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars are a better candidate than the American Revolution, what I would most like to see are some changes/updates to UG:CW. Failing that, hopefully the following can be included in the next installment.

 

• Officers that matter. Right now, as long as you have the appropriately ranked officer, it doesn't matter who they are. You can expend reputation for historical officers, and you occasionally get some key officers as rewards but there is no point to this beyond a certain level of immersion. I suggest a trait system where fictional officers have a set of randomized skills and characteristics. Historical officers have historically accurate traits. So, for example, an officer like McClellan has benefits to organization and morale, but a malus to attack and speed. Thus it would give added benefit to the historically gifted generals and a reason to expend reputation to acquire commanders like Sherman, Hancock, Reynolds, Longstreet, Jackson, etc. From the fictional side, you would have to therefore balance between officers who might have useful benefits but combined with problematic traits as well (such as McClellan once again). Also, it would accurately simulate a model that AGEOD's Civil War for example handled well: the fact that early in the war your senior officers are not particularly skilled, but are the only ones available until your more talented officers gain sufficient rank to be given command of larger formations. So, a larger pool of historical officers would also be a nice touch coupled with this.
• Division commanders visible. I am not talking about cluttering the map with more headquarters units, but there needs to be some way to tell who your division commanders are and where they are during a battle. Ideally they should also have some benefit to their subordinate brigades that are nearby as well. The current system has no advantage to keeping divisioned brigades together except in the case that you might need to combine them.
• Vulnerable corps commanders. It is not realistic that a corps HQ unit can be annihilated in a battle and yet the corps commander magically reappears after the battle. They should be every bit as vulnerable as any other officer and there is ample historical evidence to justify it. If you don't want your best corps commander (or your own personal avatar) killed off, then keep them away from the front line - and of course lose out on their positive effects for your forces. Such is the price of dynamic front line leadership.
• More customization options. The ability to rename commanders on the fly, the ability to create custom maps and campaigns, etc would do a tremendous amount to add replayability and add many missions and campaigns which would contribute to the game and take some creative burden off the development team for "new content". Even without the ability to custom  make maps (since I know they are hand-drawn) but just the ability to custom name generals in a campaign or custom battle would be an improvement. Also, finally give players the ability to change the portrait of their starting general and their starting trait(s).
• An organic campaign. This is the big one, and definitely the hardest to apply. Don't get me wrong, I love this game and the ability to play through the battles and do better than the historical commanders. But each battle is a set-piece, and despite the changes during development that have made the player's performance matter in the long term, you still have minimal control over the progression of the campaign - just affecting the numbers of each side involved. In a perfect system, there would be a campaign map - a large view of the theater(s) where corps (and maybe detached divisions?) are moved as on the normal battle map (with speed adjusted accordingly) and battles take place organically based on the positions of the opposing armies. Thus, maneuver and strategy would play a realistic purpose: if you command the Army of the Potomac and you don't want to assault the heights of Fredericksburg, then try to  cross the Rappahannock and hope you don't get caught up in the Wilderness (for example). The challenge of course is the sheer amount of maps, but this could be approximated somewhat. By having a number of maps to certain areas, you could be "defaulted" into the closest relevant one (following my previous example, if you attempt to cross north of Fredericksburg you default to the Chancellorsville map). Even by removing the scripted battle sequences, this could be made to work as casualties and whether you as the player or the AI chooses to "withdraw" first would affect who is considered the victory. So, suppose you are forced into battle on unfavorable ground that you know will be costly. If you retreat without offering battle, it will be considered a defeat or setback which will affect your reputation and reward but will save your army. If you have been victorious or successful thus far, you can afford this drop in reputation. If you attack in an unfavorable situation because you are "forced" to, then the defeat might be weighted accordingly representing that you tried (a tiered system of victories and defeats would be introduced - major and minor of each to better approximate consequences of your actions) but if it is a costly enough defeat you will suffer a reputation drop much more severely. Thus, as was historical, your tenure in command of a field army is even more tied than in the existing system to the reputation system because you will be able to expend reputation by refusing to give battle on unfavorable terms if you are popular enough.
• National morale and war-weariness. This one would only be useful in an organic campaign. Otherwise, how would the game end? By winning or losing battles - especially key ones, you affect the overall morale of your country. Losing your capitol would have such an effect that unless your national morale was extremely high it would immediately result in losing the war. Specifically for UG:CW this would work especially well, as it could be balanced based on nation. For example, the Union might automatically lose if you lose Washington, but each individual battle has less overall effect, where for the Confederacy losing Richmond is catastrophic, but might not automatically result in loss of the war if you have won battlefield victories. Thus, if there were an organic campaign, this is how you would "win" - by reducing the will of the enemy to fight which would be calculated based on battles lost, casualties sustained (and ability to replenish them) and losing key cities such as the capitols.

 

Thanks for reading!

Edited October 27, 2017 by Sir R. Calder of Southwick

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 hours ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

 

Thanks for reading!

I moved this over to the list.