Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
AegorBlackfyre

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

Recommended Posts

On 12/11/2017 at 4:20 AM, daztek said:

 

I love the idea of a late Roman / Justinian game

Otherwise, any of the 18thC / 19thC wars already mentioned would be awesome

Did anyone mention War of the Spanish Succession / Great Northern War? Throw that into the mix too

If it's Napoleon, start with his Italian campaign in 1796 and work forward

This truly. If one day they work out how melee should work, anything Rome related would be amazing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Koro said:

This truly. If one day they work out how melee should work, anything Rome related would be amazing 

They have shown a talent for linear tactics; I strongly suggest they continue playing to their strength. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would like to see in a Napoleonic or 18th century game is the variety of uniform colors while still having sprites that are simple and not memory heavy so that the game can run smoothly on most computers including laptops one uses when travelling for work.Something akin to the sprites used in the Battleground series from John Tiller (but animated of course). We would still have the jolt of colors while keeping simple and effective sprites, not going with full Total War details which should not be the priorities for such a game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remeber a game "Age of Rifles"?  It was a turn based strategy game from the early 90's - it was awesome. 

I think the engine suitable for ranged weapons from SIlesian Wars to pre-IWW is achieveable, as was shown in the mentioned game. Various campaigns, scenarios, a real ultimate general game that can cover from Kolin to Boer War. But I understand that for $ and development reasons it will be done most likely bit by bit ;) 

So my choice would be Napoleonic wars, huzzah!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 10:22 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

They have shown a talent for linear tactics; I strongly suggest they continue playing to their strength. 

 

Ancient battles are linear in nature, just a lot more compact than ACW.

The real problem with an ancients or medieval system is coding a huge array of new troop types and modeling their interactions, it would be a whole new game

Other mid-19th century wars would be the easiest port, although European cavalry would have to be modeled differently, which isn't too much of a task I guess

Napoleonic would require grappling with a lot of new code for troop types and interactions not represented currently - infantry brigade formations (line, mixed, column, square, all the above with skirmish screens), cavalry with different roles to ACW cavalry (cuirassiers, dragoons, hussars, lancers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimate General - Crimean War

This is the only easy option, the war is 10 years earlier than the civil war. The tactics and field armies would be a bit different but you would basically have 3 theatres depending on the focus.

Ottoman-Russian battles in the Caucasus and Balkans. British-French-Ottoman-Sardinia vs Russian battles on the Crimean peninsula.

Napoleon era would be a major change.

So my bet would definitely be Ultimate General Crimean War :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jekct1212 said:

Ultimate General Victoria, covers everything from 1815 through 1914.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'm repeating 'cuz I'm stubborn:

Quote

Considering the units created by the player in UG:CW are fictionalized, but resemble historical units, I'd like to expand on that concept-  Call it Ultimate General Staff: National Army.

In UGS:NA, the player is the Chief of Staff/Head of the Army (or really a series of these fellows) for a particular nation.  US, UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, A-H, Italy mainly (or their precursor minor countries/colonies- in these cases a "War of Independence" or "War of Unification" would be a major early milestone/requirement).  The game would last for say 100-150 years in annual turns during peacetime (say 1750-1900 eg).  During peacetime turns, the player gets a budget that he can spend on training units in a standing army, setting up militias/reserves, purchasing weapons, training/promoting officers, all of the management stuff that's analogous to the camp screen now.

Since the player is Army CoS, and not the national ruler, he would have input into some foreign policy decisions (i.e. make recommendations), but for the most part that would be 'over his paygrade'.  Every once in awhile though, war would break out between the player's country and one or more of the others, or even a civil war.  Then the game would generate a series of battles the player would fight through to represent the course of the war in say monthly turns.  There could be multiple wars in the course of a game.

If you are familiar with the naval game Rule the Waves, I'm thinking like this for land combat.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really want an Ultimate General Civil War 2 as expanded above or an Ultimate General Napoleon... but you know what would be really cool?

Ultimate General: Lord of the Rings or Ultimate General: Game of Thrones. XD You art a minor lord. Assemble thy army, gain access to more regions and then finally become the general or mashal in charge of the defense of Gondor or Kings Landing. XD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars are your strongest options with the game system you have created. Though it is true Napoleon has been covered extensively, never has it been done with a game of your caliber with RTS gameplay. All the modern games lean toward management of empires rather than battles. Napoleon Total War was the last good RTS for the Napoleonic Era and that came out 8 years ago. I think the entire gaming community would be impressed by a Napoleon with your gameplay. It's new, it's fresh, the battles are a work of art. I'm no marketer, but I would also assume you would attract more people from across the globe (particularly Europe) should you do a Napoleon. This leads me into the American Revolution as previously mentioned by other commenters it is rather small scale, not a lot of battles, and frankly no one out side of the US cares about it. That being said, I would still love to see Alexander Hamilton lead a charge of 400 rebels straight into Redoubt 10. A Revolutionary War game is possible and I would fit in well with your system, but I believe more people would destroying the Austrian army at the Battle of Austerlitz, or commanding brigades of redcoats desperately trying to hold Hougoumont, or charging Prussian Hussars across the field to rout the enemy. That sounds like a much more enjoyable game which fit better into the grandness of your game system.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played Gettysburg and absolutely loved it. UG:CW is like a novel and so classy. I think for me the Napoleonic Era would be a natural choice as would the American War of Independence. My outlandish suggestion would be Hannibal's campaigns or an Middle Earth war. You did say outlandish :-)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other black-powder war that deserves some consideration would be the Seven Years' War--perhaps the height of linear tactics (as strictly defined), fought across perhaps the second-greatest geographic extent of any war.

My preferences also depend on whether the large-battle system (or campaign generally) could be made more dynamic. Leipzig with a UGG-style set of dependent scenarios could be amazing; Leipzig with a UGCW-style railroaded progression an exercise in frustration. Moreover, both Napoleon and Frederick were masters of the campaign as much, if not more, than of the battlefield--seeking favorable engagements, keeping superior forces divided and defeating them in detail, etc. Extending play to the campaign map would make a huge difference to either the Seven Years' or Napoleonic wars. Conversely, if we are stuck with UGCW-style scripting, a war that featured smaller battles (to mitigate immersion-breaking scripting) and more pitched battles (to reduce regret at not having a campaign map) would seem more attractive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blothorn said:

The other black-powder war that deserves some consideration would be the Seven Years' War--perhaps the height of linear tactics (as strictly defined), fought across perhaps the second-greatest geographic extent of any war.

My preferences also depend on whether the large-battle system (or campaign generally) could be made more dynamic. Leipzig with a UGG-style set of dependent scenarios could be amazing; Leipzig with a UGCW-style railroaded progression an exercise in frustration. Moreover, both Napoleon and Frederick were masters of the campaign as much, if not more, than of the battlefield--seeking favorable engagements, keeping superior forces divided and defeating them in detail, etc. Extending play to the campaign map would make a huge difference to either the Seven Years' or Napoleonic wars. Conversely, if we are stuck with UGCW-style scripting, a war that featured smaller battles (to mitigate immersion-breaking scripting) and more pitched battles (to reduce regret at not having a campaign map) would seem more attractive.

That's exactly what nobody did before so far... every single strategy game focuses either on combat itself, or high strategy.. nobody tried to combine these two together reasonably (NTW/ETW had it, but done very badly)  Proper strategic maneuvers were huge part of Napoleon success, his ability to assess the situation and make right decision out of incomplete information about enemy is something that makes him really the greatest general ever. If you read about his campaigns, you can observe certain "thinking pattern" how to face enemies, how to overcome them, and defeat them in detail. For example during Italian campaign, his success was not due to combat prowess of French forces, but because he managed to outmaneuver enemy, misled them about his intentions,  and attacked them from directions they did not expect are even possible..

 

So, i think some kind of a campaign map would be quite interesting to have, not the "grand scale map" other games do, but actual map of the campaign area, that would allow player to decide how he wants to proceed, where and how he wants to send his forces to identify and engage enemy..  I would imagine such campaign mechanics would require certain aspect implemented like supply points, route throughput ( so having whole army march over single road would mean army would have to be spread out, and would require more supplies), complete fog of war requiring player to send scouting units up front trying to identify where enemy actually is, realistic army movement speeds over terrain and roads, etc etc... This way, player would end up fighting over important junctions, or supply points because they would mean something, not just because they are pre-set as objectives by game designer.. This strategic gameplay would also give role to certain units that did not have significant role in actual battles, like for example light cavalry(recon), sappers (building/fixing/blowing up bridges, building entrechments etc), siege artillery etc etc.. It would also give player option to create his own battlegroups/divisions/corps based on actual needs, which was quite common those days (detaching grenadiers/carabiniers, light infantry and cavalry and forming flying columns)..

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LAVA said:

Wish they would tell us! :o

dying for a game like this with different era, this is the best game ever for me. Shouldn't be that hard i think to start on a new game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read somewhere that they are having troubles with the Zombie mode... but don't quote me on that! :lol:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LAVA said:

I think I read somewhere that they are having troubles with the Zombie mode... but don't quote me on that! :lol:

Zombie mode :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many of you, as a silly impatient customer I just can't wait for an announcement, hoping it will be a Napoleon type game. I have been dreaming of a quality nappy tactical game since the battleground series !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you all. I know these things take time, and I'm very happy with the current problem. However, an announcement or statement would be great!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×