Could the game stop breaking the experience?

[Ultra_Tovarisch]

I'm extremely tired of this game intruding what I do over and over again. The game is like "What, you've got everything well and the enemy loses 15 men for each of your own trying to break through your line? Well, let me just take all your units, pretend like we had a reason to retreat and start the next phase of the battle. Or, you know what? Let's make even better, how about I'll force you to retreat without a single reason by moving the control points somewhere elsewhere, so you could lose more soldiers on the run and so they get exhausted?". Or another of my favorites "FASTER, you're running out of time, disregard the losses, you have to take it in the last.... just kidding, you've got another half an our to do it".

Edited October 15, 2017 by Ultra_Tovarisch

[Fellvred]

Sounds like you're playing it on a difficulty setting a bit too easy for your skill. Battles are much more challenging on higher levels and some of the scripted stuff will make a bit more sense as well

[Aetius]

On 10/15/2017 at 11:20 AM, Fellvred said:

Sounds like you're playing it on a difficulty setting a bit too easy for your skill. Battles are much more challenging on higher levels and some of the scripted stuff will make a bit more sense as well

For me, it's worse. On Legendary there is little room for mistakes, and a slight issue with timing can result in your troops being teleported away and all your progress lost. For example, play the Confederates defensively in Chancellorsville. You'll be thrown out of excellent defensive positions again and again with your units scrambled to hell and gone for no reason - the Union units don't even displace your troops. It is the most *intensely* frustrating issue with the game.

[TheRealJostapo]

I'm with you in that, during multi-phased battles, everything is reset despite either urging to hurry in the previous phase, or despite the fact that you just held that impossible point despite the odds; annoying.

I personally want to see all the phases they coded in for a battle, and am always cautious about NOT taking that "End it now" point.   I want to see that content and I want to drag the battles out.   

I think simple copy changes or additions would go quite a ways to solving it.

In the case of the game railroading you into another phase with your pieces reset, some copy like below would go a long ways;

"Despite your efforts, enemy success elsewhere on the field have forced us to fall back.  <more copy>"

In the case of "Hurry or all is lost" prompting, I wish they'd break narrative and throw in a "This is phase 2 of a 5 phase battle".   Or something which would tell me I'm going to have 3 additional hours to take these points. That way I'm not needless shredding divisions to rush an objective.   Arguably, the whole timer and phases thing is a game mechanic and not story/history related.   That's a great notion, and leads to some awesome ratcheting up of intensity.   That said, give it's game mechanic, finding a solution for smoothing out the ambiguity at the risk of "becoming self aware" seems worthwhile.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

4 hours ago, TheRealJostapo said:

I'm with you in that, during multi-phased battles, everything is reset despite either urging to hurry in the previous phase, or despite the fact that you just held that impossible point despite the odds; annoying.

I personally want to see all the phases they coded in for a battle, and am always cautious about NOT taking that "End it now" point.   I want to see that content and I want to drag the battles out.   

I think simple copy changes or additions would go quite a ways to solving it.

In the case of the game railroading you into another phase with your pieces reset, some copy like below would go a long ways;

"Despite your efforts, enemy success elsewhere on the field have forced us to fall back.  <more copy>"

In the case of "Hurry or all is lost" prompting, I wish they'd break narrative and throw in a "This is phase 2 of a 5 phase battle".   Or something which would tell me I'm going to have 3 additional hours to take these points. That way I'm not needless shredding divisions to rush an objective.   Arguably, the whole timer and phases thing is a game mechanic and not story/history related.   That's a great notion, and leads to some awesome ratcheting up of intensity.   That said, give it's game mechanic, finding a solution for smoothing out the ambiguity at the risk of "becoming self aware" seems worthwhile.

 

Yes, I am in full favor of a one page bulletin for each battle explaining the phases and the general flow of the battlefield. 

[Friedrich]

On 10/20/2017 at 3:20 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Yes, I am in full favor of a one page bulletin for each battle explaining the phases and the general flow of the battlefield. 

Honestly I would prefer if they had just created more dynamic battles, like Gettysburg had, from the outset rather than giving us a mess of battles which while well crafted are essentially railroaded. That said if the entire game isn't going to be redesigned I think better conveying how things should play out, similar to your suggestion, is the least they could do.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

46 minutes ago, Friedrich said:

Honestly I would prefer if they had just created more dynamic battles, like Gettysburg had, from the outset rather than giving us a mess of battles which while well crafted are essentially railroaded. That said if the entire game isn't going to be redesigned I think better conveying how things should play out, similar to your suggestion, is the least they could do.

Well, for those who might not know this, allow me to provide a bit of background . . . 

The first iteration of this game was Gettysburg. Only Gettysburg. But it proved that their tactical map system would stand out in a crowded field. I saw it on Steam, it interested me, but I never purchased it until after UG:CW came out. 

Second up was Civil War. Civil War took everything Gettysburg had to offer, and expanded it into a campaign. I followed a discussion about it on another forum, I watched from afar, and the moment I began playing I was hooked. The game is not perfect, I have an entire laundry list of little things I want fixed. But this game is the closest thing I've ever seen to tabletop miniatures and I have nothing but respect for Sterner and Dartis for putting this thing together.  

As I understand it, this game is basically done. It will be updated, maybe a few minor battles will appear, but all in all I think it is done. I know a few intrepid individuals who are waiting for the 'final' version before beginning work on their mods, and that time is soon. 

Why? Something is cooking. They won't tell us what, but the aroma in the kitchen is intriguing. All those suggestions and enhancements they have been busy collecting about this game will show up in that one. And, if the next game is as big a jump forward as Gettysburg to Civil War, please let me know when I can pre-order because I will be first in line. 

 

For those who want to wait, @Mr. Mercanto has already begun a petition drive for the 'UG:CW II in 2027' campaign. That game will be friggin' awesome! Get with him on where to sign up. 

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

Well, they just asked us on their FB site if we want UG: Napoleon or UG: American Revolution. I have this feeling the base of the next game is already laid.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

11 hours ago, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Well, they just asked us on their FB site if we want UG: Napoleon or UG: American Revolution. I have this feeling the base of the next game is already laid.

Smart man

[Friedrich]

On 10/26/2017 at 3:54 AM, Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf said:

Well, they just asked us on their FB site if we want UG: Napoleon or UG: American Revolution. I have this feeling the base of the next game is already laid.

Definitely hope they go for Napoleon. I don't think that the American War of Posts will provide too many interesting engagements to be honest. Plus unit sizes are going to have to be be cut in ten if the scale is intended to remain similar to that of Civil War. Of course then we run into the problem of multi-factional wars where allegiances shifted regularly, but im sure that the Devs will make it work and surprise me with how obvious the solution was.

On 10/26/2017 at 1:54 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

Well, for those who might not know this, allow me to provide a bit of background . . . 

The first iteration of this game was Gettysburg. Only Gettysburg. But it proved that their tactical map system would stand out in a crowded field. I saw it on Steam, it interested me, but I never purchased it until after UG:CW came out. 

Second up was Civil War. Civil War took everything Gettysburg had to offer, and expanded it into a campaign. I followed a discussion about it on another forum, I watched from afar, and the moment I began playing I was hooked. The game is not perfect, I have an entire laundry list of little things I want fixed. But this game is the closest thing I've ever seen to tabletop miniatures and I have nothing but respect for Sterner and Dartis for putting this thing together.  

As I understand it, this game is basically done. It will be updated, maybe a few minor battles will appear, but all in all I think it is done. I know a few intrepid individuals who are waiting for the 'final' version before beginning work on their mods, and that time is soon. 

Why? Something is cooking. They won't tell us what, but the aroma in the kitchen is intriguing. All those suggestions and enhancements they have been busy collecting about this game will show up in that one. And, if the next game is as big a jump forward as Gettysburg to Civil War, please let me know when I can pre-order because I will be first in line. 

 

For those who want to wait, @Mr. Mercanto has already begun a petition drive for the 'UG:CW II in 2027' campaign. That game will be friggin' awesome! Get with him on where to sign up. 

Yea, I know the game is finished i'm just disappointing with the direction they took with it. Gettysburg provided an insane amount of variety for that single battle and to see that success repeated across a dozen more battles and have them linked together in a campaign is simply too awesome for me to forget about. The reason i'm so disappointed is actually because civil war was such a big improvement. I can't go back to Gettysburg now that I have obique movement, army customization, and so many tiny improvements to combat I will just mention the line drawing system and leave it at that to save time. With regards to Civil War as it stands however all I wan't from them now is unit pathfinding, so they will use roads and whatnot, and a definitive fix to unit damage scaling so that it is more logarithmic and less parabolic. Everything else is decidedly in the realm 'would of, could of, should of' and is more about what I want from the series going forwards than an actual request for future updates.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

 

On 10/26/2017 at 12:54 AM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

For those who want to wait, @Mr. Mercanto has already begun a petition drive for the 'UG:CW II in 2027' campaign. That game will be friggin' awesome! Get with him on where to sign up. 

If only it wasn't so far away... *sigh*
Oh, well. I guess you can't have everything.

I hope the next game is on the American Revolution, it's such an under-done era, and I would genuinely be interested in it.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

I can't wait for the next release. I wonder how much they're going to alter this game before the 'final version'. @Andre Bolkonsky, do you think we can expect a few more custom battles, or are the devs already moved on to the next game?

Edited October 31, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[Mr. Mercanto]

On 10/25/2017 at 10:54 PM, Andre Bolkonsky said:

For those who want to wait, @Mr. Mercanto has already begun a petition drive for the 'UG:CW II in 2027' campaign. That game will be friggin' awesome! Get with him on where to sign up. 

It's going to be tremendous. We're hoping to up the date to 2025 to coincide with the 160th. 

[Koro]

7 hours ago, Mr. Mercanto said:

It's going to be tremendous. We're hoping to up the date to 2025 to coincide with the 160th. 

We will deliver amazing results. You won't even believe how much you will win. You will be tired of winning!

[A. P. Hill]

If infantry will move per normal manual manouvers as opposed to pivoting from the center in serpentine squiggly S movements you'll make me happy.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

15 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Also, @Andre Bolkonsky
I have absolutely no idea how the devs are handling things like this, but if they're ever in need of any beta testers, I would readily volunteer myself. I have a bit of experience with coding, and I've played pretty much every real time strategy game from the original Age of Empires through Warhammer II. I'm not sure what kind of beta program you guys are running, but Ultimate General: Civil War has made me very loyal to this franchise, and I'll do anything I can to help out.

Regards,
ASJ

Same for me, I also started with AoE1 xD .I did actually do some beta testing for Battlefleet Gothic: Armada (also a bit of translation there), Hearts of Iron IV and TW: WARHAMMER. Ok, the latter two only because I write for a small german online strategy game mag, but still. Would love to help the guys making an even better game, thought UG:CV eclipses every other tactics game I ever played, even Medieval 2.