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

[DeRuyter]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 11:15 AM, LAVA said:

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.

As the wars went on and the French lost veterans Napoleon came to rely much more on artillery in particular after the Russian campaign. Guns and trained artillerymen were far easier to come by than horses and trained cavalrymen. I think if you look at the ratio of guns to men in the 1813 campaign it is higher than in previous campaigns (maybe except Russia). Can't remember the source for this off the top of my head though.

[OnTheHouse]

Greetings and Well Wishes-

I'm of the mind that UG-G could be considered a primer used to establish the overall coding and it still serves as a good primer for the newcomer's intro into GameLab's product listing.  With UGCW, we see a deeper program filled up sub-contents, nice graphical implements, ease of gameplay improvements...

So to my mind, GL is already primed to use the code on a different theatre, albeit graphical maps need remodeled.  Thusly, UG -AmRev and UG -Nap could be separate addons  for the products in place.  And with some editing, could be sold separately to stand alongside UG-G, increasing the product line and awareness. UG-CW was a terrific update/upgrade from the core UG-G baseline, and to date, I see no reason why GL couldn't just focus the mapping of both campaigns (AmRev and Nap) into a new Large program set and or separate stand-alones...in any case, I'm in full support of GL's work given the limitations of my household budgets today.

War of 1812 and French and Indian War come to mind
 

Edited October 28, 2017 by OnTheHouse
French and Indian War

[OnTheHouse]

On 10/8/2017 at 3:50 PM, JaM said:

there was only one Ultimate General, and his name was Napoleon...

Before Napoleon, there was Alexander the Great

[OnTheHouse]

Another thought...
Please implement a feature for the user that is interrupted or 'onthego'.. to save the current battle status from one system, save it to the flash drive, then load the pertinent files over to the laptop where we continue exactly where we left off after we've boarded the plane and enroute to our destination...enjoy the game  while in our hotel, then repeat the steps over to the flash drive to be updated on the home system.

[The Soldier]

@OnTheHouse

You can.  Just find the save file location in AppData and get the correct save file via sorting it by date.  Copy it to a flash drive, then stick it in your laptop and move the files to the same location. Transferred save files, voila.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

AppData is a hidden system folder, though. So you won't find it without deactivating the insivibility.

[Panzeh]

Honestly, I don't believe a strategic map should be added- tactical games should be tactical games, strategic games should be strategic games, the mix tends to water down the design- the strategy layer can't have combat really tuned to integrate other elements of the game, and the tactical game has far less interesting battles as the goal of a strategic layer is to create completely unequal tactical situations.

I do hope to see the campaign able to incorporate random maps and more randomized scenarios rather than a series of battles that are the same every time.  The exact period of the game doesn't bother me so much- I wouldn't mind either the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars, though I believe these wars would focus less on weaponry, and that's fine with me.

[LAVA]

1 hour ago, Panzeh said:

Honestly, I don't believe a strategic map should be added- tactical games should be tactical games, strategic games should be strategic games, the mix tends to water down the design- the strategy layer can't have combat really tuned to integrate other elements of the game, and the tactical game has far less interesting battles as the goal of a strategic layer is to create completely unequal tactical situations.

The problem is in today's Strategic/Tactic games the mechanics allow, for example, the creation of mega armies placed in provinces which realistically could not sustain them. The actual result of such moves would result in shortages of every kind and a spike in death due to disease. In actuality, armies only concentrated for battle and then only after a period of logistical buildup. Even then, most efforts, fell short.

This is why the "province" based Strategy/Tactical games are so gamey.

I believe there is a way to overcome the problem, but so far I haven't seen any games company crack it.

[Friedrich]

5 hours ago, LAVA said:

The problem is in today's Strategic/Tactic games the mechanics allow, for example, the creation of mega armies placed in provinces which realistically could not sustain them. The actual result of such moves would result in shortages of every kind and a spike in death due to disease. In actuality, armies only concentrated for battle and then only after a period of logistical buildup. Even then, most efforts, fell short.

This is why the "province" based Strategy/Tactical games are so gamey.

I believe there is a way to overcome the problem, but so far I haven't seen any games company crack it.

Isn't the solution just to impose supply limits and have armies take extreme attrition should they exceed them, as is the case in Paradox games? Seems to be what you are asking for.

[Panzeh]

6 hours ago, Friedrich said:

Isn't the solution just to impose supply limits and have armies take extreme attrition should they exceed them, as is the case in Paradox games? Seems to be what you are asking for.

There are strict maximums on TW army sizes but it doesn't result in interesting tactical battles or help the strategic game.  It's not a thing that needs to mix.

[Friedrich]

11 hours ago, Panzeh said:

There are strict maximums on TW army sizes but it doesn't result in interesting tactical battles or help the strategic game.  It's not a thing that needs to mix.

Was actually referring to how it is handled in Paradox games like CK2, EU4, HOI4, etc. Each province has a supply limit determined by a collection of factors and modified by ownership status. Said supply is consumed by troops operating in the province and if that limit is exceeded all armies will get an out of supply modifier which inflicts significant amounts of attrition. The result is that if a region lacks the necessary resources to forage or infrastructure to import your supplies you can only maintain small armies in that province and have to either split it up and doomstack only during already pitched battles or suck it up and take those losses from attrition. Now Paradox games are grand strategy but for a Tactical level game such a system would still be important. The ability to disrupt your enemy's supply lines and the need to maintain your own leads to interesting decisions which the player has to make. Such a mechanic gives a lot of battles and skirmishes an importance they would otherwise lack. In the end that is why Tactics/Strategy hybrid games are so popular, they provide the battles with meaning by giving them real consequences for their outcome. You may not care for that fact but in that respect you are certainly the minority.

[JaM]

Personally, what i would like to see with Napoleonic setting is a bit more strict organization structure, with Divisions identified a bit clearer. Typically, single Brigade was four battalion strong, Division had 8 battalions (2 brigades). Units were organized within battalions, which were smallest tactical unit and all maneuvers were performed by battalions.

If scale is same as with UG:Civil War, then you could either keep units in brigades, or even go with regiments. Anyway, what would be the most different from Civil War is the way how infantry actually moved around, or how it fought.

Division would typically fight with single brigade formed in line, and second brigade formed in columns. Columns were typically battalion size, therefore brigade was typically formed in 4 columns, with unit keeping its frontage similar as if formed in line, so brigade would have enough of space to quickly form the line if needed. At the same time, battalion sized columns would allow very fast transformation into squares, as it would require 2 companies to turn 90 degrees while rear companies would just move forward to close the square.

Brigade formed in columns would be actually smaller target than brigade formed in line, but any hit would deal mode casualties to column than it would do to a line. Brigade formed in Columns should be also able to form squares at least 4 times faster, than if deployed in line:

Mixed Order/Ordre Mixte was a special formation introduced by Napoleon (theoretically it was proposed earlier, but nobody cared to implement it in army. First use of it was during Italian campaign 1796 during battle of Tagliamento.)

Brigade would form 2 center battalions in line, and flank battalions in column. This formation would give brigade better firepower than if whole unit  was formed in columns, but would also allow better maneuverability (practically impossible when deployed in line), and allow brigade to attack enemy on flanks. (firepower for line formation = 100%, Ordre mixte = 75%, Columns= 50%)

 

 

 

So, in battle, player will have to decide which of these three formations he wants to use with his brigades - with line, he would have full firepower, but would be unable to maneuver, and his brigade would only move forward at reduced speed (to keep brigade in order). Brigade would be easier to hit with solid shot (direct fire), but actual damage will be minimal (killing those in the path of shot = 3 men max for direct hit). Infantry formed in line is easier to catch unprepared by cavalry.

With Mixed order, player would still have good firepower, but will be also able to move slightly faster (only 50% of men formed in line = less likely for formation to break up). Mixed order presents 75% of frontal profile, therefore is smaller target, but hits on flanks deal more damage to battalions in column ( single column = 3x3ranks, therefore direct hit will do at least 9 casualties) Mixed order can defend from cavalry better, due to flanks forming squares faster.

Columns formation would be fastest to move across the battlefield, and brigades formed in columns would be able to quickly adapt other formations. Brigades would easily repel cavalry this way. They will present only 50% profile to enemy gunfire (muskets, artillery) but any hit from artillery causes always at least 9 casualties.

Quote

Contrary to what many think, actual bayonet charges were not delivered from columns, but always from line. Even at Waterloo, French columns marched all the way to the British line, then formed line formations and exchanged musket fire for few minutes before attempting the charge, which was delivered by Middle Guard while Old Guard battalions stayed in reserve, and stopped British counterattack once Middle Guard was repelled.

 

With these three formations (four actually if we count the squares), player would have to decide what formation is best for particular situation, yet even best possible formation could end up being unsuitable against different types of threat (line vs cavalry, column/squares vs artillery).

 

And regarding skirmishers - each battalion had single company dedicated to skirmish duty(out of 6 for French). therefore if Brigade detached skirmishers, each battalion would sent one company. (So, if brigade is 2000 strong with 500 per battalion,  it would deploy around 320 skirmishers)

 

 

(i can post same thing for cavalry and artillery if you want)

 

[LAVA]

Sounds like regiments are the way to go to me.

You could use the same AO of UG:CW of max 4 Corps, 4 Divisions, 5 Regiments per Division.

So now, IMO, what you need is some sort of mechanism where the basic maneuver element is the Division, not the Regiment, which seems easy enough by just clicking on one of the regiments, the order arrow is for the entire Division. You would also need a formation order. Here when you look at your AO at the bottom of the screen, you right click on the division you want to order, which pops up a formation list which you then select with a left click. Think you would also need a detach order, applying mostly to Cavalry, Artillery, and Light Regiments; however, if they move out of the Command Radius of the Corps, they should receive a significant morale hit.

That would mean starting off with a small AO of say 1 Corps, 2 Divisions with 2 Regiments per Division.

Edited October 31, 2017 by LAVA

[JaM]

I think even Brigade is workable, and all the maneuvers within formation (Line -> Column -> Square) would be handled by animation itself, while unit would just keep the frontage and size at all times. Division would be then composed of 2-3 Brigades + divisional artillery. This way, single Division would be easier to control and keep together, while Corps would play  major role. I think divisional commander could just take over command of one of infantry brigades, while Corps commander would be deployed as separate entity.

 

 

[LAVA]

15 minutes ago, JaM said:

I think even Brigade is workable, and all the maneuvers within formation (Line -> Column -> Square) would be handled by animation itself, while unit would just keep the frontage and size at all times. Division would be then composed of 2-3 Brigades + divisional artillery. This way, single Division would be easier to control and keep together, while Corps would play  major role. I think divisional commander could just take over command of one of infantry brigades, while Corps commander would be deployed as separate entity.

Indeed,

Sounds more simple to program and easier to play. Nevertheless, would like to see something put in there to maintain Divisional integrity and not have individual Brigades running around where ever you wanted to move them.

Reminds me of Sam Mustafa's Grande Armée.

http://www.miniatures.de/wargame-grande-armee-sam-mustafa.html

Edited October 31, 2017 by LAVA

[JaM]

One thing on movement - i think infantry deployed in line should have the slowest angular speed of all, so it would be practically impossible to turn the unit to face enemy on flank. Mixed order would be a lot better at this, as 50% of men are in line, and 50% in column, therefore angular speed for half long line would be a lot faster, while columns would maneuver even better. Therefore, in mixed order player would exchange a bit of firepower, for better maneuverability. With columns, there would be no restriction on movement, therefore it would be the best formation to do any kind of maneuvers. Plus, units even tended to move at quick march while in columns, therefore overall movement would be a lot faster (in mixed order, columns would have to keep formation with the battalions in line)

 

 

[GAR_Arapharzon]

On 2017-10-09 at 1:40 AM, LAVA said:

This is where the designer (Adam Bryant) of MadMinute Games which created Take Command - 2nd Manassas wanted to go. We chatted about it quite a lot. Unlike the Total War Series, however,  we were thinking about placing an Operational Level in between the Strategic and Tactical level. At the strategic level you would be allocating resources, for example. At the operational level you would be dealing with armies. At the tactical level you would be fighting battles. The problem though was... how do you do that?

This is a very interesting idea. TC 2nd Manassas is a game I have played with great delight. 

[veji1]

On 31/10/2017 at 5:29 PM, JaM said:

One thing on movement - i think infantry deployed in line should have the slowest angular speed of all, so it would be practically impossible to turn the unit to face enemy on flank. Mixed order would be a lot better at this, as 50% of men are in line, and 50% in column, therefore angular speed for half long line would be a lot faster, while columns would maneuver even better. Therefore, in mixed order player would exchange a bit of firepower, for better maneuverability. With columns, there would be no restriction on movement, therefore it would be the best formation to do any kind of maneuvers. Plus, units even tended to move at quick march while in columns, therefore overall movement would be a lot faster (in mixed order, columns would have to keep formation with the battalions in line)

This is also why in 18th century and napoleonic warfare cavalry to cover the flanks was really really vital.... infantry would get massively messed up if caugh in enfilade by fire or charged on its flanks because it needed lots of time to turn.

Light cavalry was needed for that job as well as the scouting and this is why generals always sought to anchor their flanks.

In a future UG-Napoleon this is the actual part of the game I would most look forward to : the inter-arm interactions. In a Napoleonic game one would really have to play one's cavalry well to win the game, it wouldn't be an afterthought at all, but actually really important to repeal an infantry attack, harass flanks, slow down ennemy movement, etc.

[LAVA]

Agreed.

But the greater implication is how Napoleon took advantage of the "set piece" battle mentality and turned it on it's head with the Corps system. I believe when asked what were his basic  principles of war, Napoleon responded that folks would be surprised how simple they were. I believe he understood just how inflexible warfare was during his time and his method was to take full advantage of that. So for example, he might engage the enemy at one location and attack furiously with the forces he had available and then as the battle was reaching what his enemy thought was the crescendo, a French corps would appear on the flank of the enemy and the fatal blow dealt.

It was this ability, to form the battlefield in such a way as to be able to exploit it, that lies the genius of Napoleon.

[LAVA]

3 hours ago, GAR_Arapharzon said:

This is a very interesting idea. TC 2nd Manassas is a game I have played with great delight. 

I think an Operational layer would translate into a splendid strategic game and I really don't think it would be all that difficult. I have spent lots of time thinking about implementation during our talks and after and I believe there is a way to do it without having to spend an arm and a leg. Would make a great UG:CW 2.

As far as TC 2nd Manassas, that was a great game. Not only was it fun to test (which is saying something because testing is usually quite repetitive and tedious), it was fun to play. I personally enjoyed playing at the Army level ordering my Corps about and essentially letting the AI fight the battle (with a little bit of micro at important areas).

I remember when I first joined the team, I was told to check out the tutorial. So I played it (or I thought I did) and I came back with a report saying that that was quite difficult. As it turned out, what I was playing was the first scenario of the campaign!

[Perkon]

Fix Ultimate General, add more options and features.

[michaelsmithern]

I know it’s gonna be a stretch but I would like to see a more dynamic  game, almost like the first one, but with the mechanics from the civil war, with army management and what not, while it would require essentially making the battles really long with multiple routes and even multiple ways of going into them. 

 

Now im gonna simplify my list by making different tabs of what I’d like

 

- regiments or the ability to split off regiments

- a more in depth army management( I know more micro but hey I like that stuff)

- a more dynamic campaign

- battles that are able to have more dynamic actions

- the ability to choose between volunteers/regulars/ etc( this would be good for Nap wars as you could have highlanders or polish legions or whatever

-  a way of knowing which brigade the division general is with or just an option to have him on the screen

- more skills as a commander I really enjoyed the current ones they had plenty to offer and it was hard to choose for some of them which ones I needed to prioritize

i did and didn’t like the points system for getting things from the government because if you lost a battle and didn’t have enough points you’d be shit out of luck and be replaced, doesn’t matter if you have one every battle

- keep cavalry the same please, in UGG they were almost useless but in CW they are very good and I like it that way they play a vital role

and many smaller details that can be overlooked as they are just a personal preference.

 

if anybody has an addition or what they want to contest I’d love to hear it, disagreements can lead communities forward if they have meaning

 

 

almost forgot for a sequel I’d like to see a revolutionary war game, it’d be just nice

however I think an overdone Napoleonic wars game might expand the fan base to those who enjoy the time period and it’ll explore another part of the world instead of covering US history 

Edited November 5, 2017 by michaelsmithern

[The Soldier]

25 minutes ago, michaelsmithern said:

-  a way of knowing which brigade the division general is with or just an option to have him on the screen

That, I'm pretty sure he's everywhere.  From experience, the Division Commander is "present" in every brigade in his division and can be killed whenever any of the brigades in his division takes fire - just a much lower chance than a brigade commander.

[michaelsmithern]

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

That, I'm pretty sure he's everywhere.  From experience, the Division Commander is "present" in every brigade in his division and can be killed whenever any of the brigades in his division takes fire - just a much lower chance than a brigade commander.

I figured but you know it’s just one of my nitpicks that id like to know. It’s not really that important 

[daztek]

 

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