Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Charging will be as good and realistic as it can be.

 

Well said. People, be aware that poor Nick is putting his utmost effort into this game. The last thing he needs is nitpicky points on elements of gameplay that might look a little different due to the game's unique graphical style and perspective. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In our first announcement of Ultimate General: Gettysburg I shared the main features  that you can read in summary in the first page of our web site (http://www.ultimategeneral.com) and in the Develop

Sign me up.   I always wondered why someone as talented as you wasn't making games instead of fixing CA's messes.   Will there be any simulation of communication delay? Or is the scale all in bugl

Very excited about this game, DarthMod. I'm a gameplay programmer at a big publisher on a MASSIVE team, and I'm always interested in the development of games like yours. I love to support crowd-funded

Posted Images

The last thing he needs is nitpicky points on elements of gameplay...

 

 

There is nothing nitpicky about movement speed, nor how bayonet-charges are modeled. Surely you must realize this.

 

...that might look a little different due to the game's unique graphical style and perspective.

 

 

The pace at which soldiers move, and the frequency of which bayonet-charges are depicted in the gameplay footage have got absolutely nothing to do with the game's graphical style. And you must surely realize this, as well.

 

 

 

That said; I'm glad Nick Thomadis confirms that he has taken this into consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There is nothing nitpicky about movement speed, nor how bayonet-charges are modeled. Surely you must realize this.

 

My apologies; I wasn't thinking well at the time. Of course, movement speed is incredibly fundamental to a game like this, but ultimately is whichever suits either Nick's vision or actual gameplay.

 

 

The pace at which soldiers move, and the frequency of which bayonet-charges are depicted in the gameplay footage have got absolutely nothing to do with the game's graphical style. And you must surely realize this, as well.

 

 

The bayonet charges, perhaps not. The trailer was most likely designed to show more action packed, movement filled scenes to drum up attention (in a good way). But if you look closely, you'll see that the scale of infantry and the map itself isn't exactly 1:1. For that reason, depending if Darth's going for a realistic-to-scale approach or one that suits the actual unit depiction.

 

However, I too am glad that Nick is taking this into consideration. There aren't very many developers out there that will focus on this sort of stuff. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and good luck with your game, it certainly looks very nice.

 

To echo Queeg's concerns above about infantry speed - you're really going to need to slow down the infantry, unless what you're showing us so far is not portrayed in real time.

 

As an example, my estimate of distance between McPhersons Ridge and Oak ridge (where you have a short vid of Rebels charging towards a union line) is about 1 km (measured in google earth).  It seems to me the Rebels are going to cover off this ground in less than perhaps 30 seconds (and charging in such an unorderley fashion, tsk tsk :-)

 

Also, it was not common for a charge to take place over that kind of distance.  Walking pace, speeding up to 'on the double' and then perhaps the last 50 meters would be an all out hell for leather charge.  But during those times a charge to contact was extremely rare, most charges were broken well before contact due to punishing defending fire.

 

Just some feedback based on the pics shown so far.

 

cheers Chris

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barkmann,

FYI - the video is not in real time and I suspect you are a bit confused.

The fast video you are referring to that depicts a CSA charge is from the top of Seminary Ridge (not McPherson's Ridge or Oak Ridge) to the bottom of Seminary Ridge (South of Gettysburg). For a reference point you can see the Bliss farm in the yellow field at the bottom of the video.

The other video (with the blue arrows) depicts the south end of Oak Ridge directly west of the Lutheran Seminary. The Seminary is visible briefly at the bottom of the video and the white building on the far right is the Pennsylvania College building.

This should help your time/distance calculations.

PS - excellent observations and good eye!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey David

 

yes given my age I'm easily confused :-)

 

The image below is what I am talking about and it clearly shows the unfinished railway and ridges in question.  Kudos to the devs for making such a nice map.

 

I read in the AAR that these are skirmishers doing the charge - that's actually even more worrying (well, in a grumpy grognard sense!) as skirmishers would have never ever pressed home an attack on even a remotely formed enemy unit, it just wasn't done. 

 

So does the game play in real time?  If not, what time factor is it shown in the video?  Is there the ability to play in real time?

 

thanks

 

cheers Chris

 

 

 

 

7t89.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I thought you were talking about the video that Nick attached to his post. Let me know where you read the AAR and I'll see if I can help.

The screen above is definitely on Oak Ridge (my apologies), and I agree with your grumpy grognard observation if Devin's skirmishers are charging Davis. Because the game is in development there are historical debates ongoing regarding how various units performed.

I've done a bunch of time and movement studies and the infantry moves at the proper speed and distances over the map.

I just did a quick test and 10 minutes of game time = about 90 seconds on the clock. I think this is what you were asking.

There was a post regarding the game speed and some discussion about an option to slow down the action. I don't recall that anyone wanted a time scale of 1 minute of clock time = 1 minute of time in the game. From my perspective as a tester my preference was to play a day of battle in about an hour. In reality I don't think I could play UGG at this speed; especially when there are a bunch of units in a Phase.

Kind Regards,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

TWking,

Thanks for the link!

Chris,

I've reviewed the AAR and the caption in the AAR on the picture included in your post (above) is:

"Davis (CSA) charges against the Union forces (Devin's skirmishers) holding Oak Ridge" - My parentheses.

In your post above it states:

"I read in the AAR that these are skirmishers doing the charge - that's actually even more worrying (well, in a grumpy grognard sense!) as skirmishers would have never ever pressed home an attack on even a remotely formed enemy unit, it just wasn't done."

So...

It seems that all is right with the world in grumpy grognard's sense - Devin's skirmishers are not charging Davis. Suggest you take a second look at the text; there are places where the text is a bit confused. Note that English may not be the native language of all of the members of the dev team.

But...

With your sharp eye and Civil War knowledge I figured you'd catch the anachronism of mounted videttes fighting against formed divisions - which from a grumpy grognard's sense is even more fascinating.

Videttes = to see. Civil War videttes (scouts) were deployed over vast distances (usually miles) in groups of 4 to 6 soldiers as the eyes of the army. So how is it the Videttes can act as the eyes of the army and at the same time be harassing the flanks and rear of a formed division? From a command and control perspective this level of coordination could only be possible with radio communication. It could not happen during the American Civil War and it certainly did not happen at Gettysburg with Buford's videttes. Videttes combining for this kind of attack would need to disregard their orders and primary mission: intelligence gathering. Videttes were commanded by lieutenants and it is difficult to fathom a junior grade officer pulling all of his resources off the vidette line to fight against a formed division.

Cavalry usually fought dismounted during the war. Horses were valuable assets and are big targets for a man with a rifled musket. Also the effective range of a rifled musket (250 yards) was > a Union cavalry carbine by about 100 yards. CSA cavalry were frequently armed with pistols and shotguns so the range disadvantage would be much worse for CSA cavalry vs. Union infantry (50+ yards vs. 250 yards respectively). Finally, Southern cavalry owned their own horses which made CSA troopers reluctant to fight infantry from horseback. Few CSA cavalry soldiers wanted a promotion to the infantry by losing their horse. There are examples of mounted battle when cavalry was up against other cavalry (East Cavalry Field Gettysburg). There were a few charges of cavalry against infantry; but the result was usually the destruction of the reputation of the cavalry commander. Hugh Judson "Kill Cavalry" Kilpatrick is a prime example of an officer that recklessly committed cavalry vs. infantry. General Meade confronted Kilpatrick during the Gettysburg campaign for "Kill Cavalry's" lack of respect for man and beast in blue.

For the first hand accounts see:

9th New York Volunteer Cavalry – Devin’s Brigade Vidette duty at Gettysburg Starting at page 93 and following See:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=JId4AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA93

http://www.9thnycavalry.webeditor.com/about.html

Sharp & Hankin Carbine used by the 9th New York See: http://www.civilwararsenal.com/tag/sharps-hankins-carbine/

In a cavalry vs. infantry battle the cavalry usually had the choice of inaction or suicide if fighting from horseback. But this is grousing from a grumpy grognard's perspective.

Cheers,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

So I just discovered this project today thanks to Johan at PDS pointing at some of the games being highlighted on the Unity page, and I must admit I'm pretty damn interested as a modder.  I'm a history buff and an avid gamer for over 40 years now and I'm hoping this is the game I've been waiting for for a tactical type game.

 

What I've read so far, I'm a lovin it :)

 

First impressions are: I'd buy it now, and happily wait for it to be finished! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I just discover this game : fantastic, probably a futur great hit.  Can't wait to play with ! As I see in the video, I think it will be a game for "no sleeping night" : one turn, one turn, one turn again, and so during the entire night. :P

 

Have a date for the final release ? Very impatient to play this. :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Just my suggestions after watching the video provided only,

 

  • Battle speed too fast (as many have pointed out)
  • Skirmishers are not a unit but merely an action taken by a unit. Any unit could send out skirmishers. Is this going to be an option, to be able to turn on/off skirmishing like charging? If it can be done then I'd suggest removing units named "skirmishers" to relieve the issues pointed out already about skirmishers fixing bayonets and charging, filling positions in the main battle line, etc. Make them have a true purpose rather than trying to shoe-horn them into a role they are not.
  • If cavalry can dismount and fight the same as activating a unit to charge, that would be cool too. Have a button to turn on/off dismount and when they are dismounted, they act like the skirmishers as I stated above.
  • Have units maintain formation and if they cross rough terrain or charge over a large stretch of distance, the unit will break up as it moves. This can be done with a simple "cohesion" gauge that takes hits as the unit moves over certain ground or moves through other units and slowly goes back up if the unit stops and doesn't move "reforming". Being a former ACW reenactor, you'd be surprised how much time is being spent in the middle of battle dressing lines and all the while being shot at!
  • I wrote this in another thread but I wanted to repeat that to accomplish resupply (not reload) all you would need is a gauge that slowly goes down each time the unit fires (depleting the ammo the unit has on hand). Once the gauge goes below a certain limit, the unit automatically fixes bayonets and can only melee. To shoot again, the unit must resupply using a resupply point on the map. These resupply points can be just like the reinforcement points you already have and the unit must have access to the point to get resupplied the same as if you lose a road or other map location, you lose the reinforcement in that location (until cleared of enemy). Have a button to push to "resupply" and the unit will not move until the gauge gets to a certain point. The unit will auto-fall-back if an enemy gets too close while in resupply mode. When the unit's ammo gauge gets to a certain point (but not full yet), it can start shooting again if an enemy gets in range but as long as it remains undisturbed, the gauge will keep going up until full. Now the unit is ready for action again. This prevents baby-sitting units that are resupplying.
  • If you want to get more technical with supply trains, a horse and wagon can be used as a supply unit. It can be moved around the same as any unit and comes with a supply radius that shows like the commander's influence circle. Any unit within the supply radius will resupply (not reload) automatically (IE: their resupply gauge automatically goes up without pressing any buttons). I prefer not to get this far into supplying in this game for the sake of keeping the game fluid and simple but some people I have read like to control things like that.
  • Make some elite units like sharpshooters, scouts/observers, engineers, etc. (which you probably already thought of but I just thought I'd mention).

 

These are just suggestions to help improve the game I hope and I love the progress you have made so far.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the skirmisher units do represent elements of other units, which are specifically tasked with skirmishing. Can't comment on the others, though some of those points might be harder to implement as mechanics than you think. Things such as a 'cohesion' gauge might be quite hard to add in, for example. 

 

In terms of the combat speed... while I'm sure Darth wants to make a game faithful to the real thing, you have to remember it IS a game. There are some liberties that have to be taken. That said, we'll see what happens on release. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only hope -- re both these cogent posts above my own -- is that while, as  both a game designer and a player, I understand that UGG is a game, and I have been  witness to the "game" versus "simulation" battle (which for wargamers is like the eternal war between Good and Evil, though nobody has ever been able to figure out, in this case, which is which!).   I want to enjoy a game first, or I probably won't play it for very long.  Having admitted this, a game that chooses to take up an historical mantle should at least make an effort to adhere to the basic facts of that history.

 

And since I have been immersed in the Civil War for most of my life, I would really like, for once, to see a Civil War game that actually had some direct correlation to how Civil War battles were fought.  Do that, and I promise to stop complaining about the bizarre field music which has nothing to do with the Civil War (including postwar cavalry bugle "Charge" calls for infantry, among other things), and the fact that the Federal infantry, at least, carries its muskets on the wrong shoulder -- there is a reason the position is called RIGHT Shoulder Shift! 
 

There is one reason that some of us have been raving about the vidette shock troops for so long -- a small amount of research will reveal the real use of videttes, not to mention the fact that though one early war unit called itself "Vidette Cavalry," there was never, ever, a "unit" of videttes. The number of men in a vidette "unit" could easily have fit into two dog tents, and the only purpose -- ever -- of a vidette was to gather intelligence.  To use it for any other purpose would be like sending a jeep with three men armed with .45s out to attack a battery of German 88s in World War II.

 

The cohesion rule could be hard to implement, at this point, though there are games that have such rules. But my suspicion is that this game is too far along to reprogram things such as that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the role of skirmishers in battle and it can be debated both ways but in my own opinion; I just don't like the idea of a unit of "skirmishers" and think it would make more sense to have a "skirmish" ability for each unit to switch on/off just like the "charge" ability. That way I can use the unit as a regular line infantry when I don't need them as skirmishers.

 

The cohesion idea is sorta already in game just looking at the video of the game action again. It appears that units break formation while moving.

 

I was just posting some ideas to get the old brainstorm brewing. The creators already have their minds set to where they want to go. Ideas posted here are just there to see if anything "fits" within their vision.

 

Darth has spoiled us from his mods in the Total War series so it's hard not to get carried away knowing what he's capable of. lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the ongoing feedback and suggestions.

I would like to emphasize about skirmishers that, due to technical limitations, we were obliged to make specialised units for this role. To have a meaning historically we made a lot of "detached" units that operate solely as skirmishers or cavalry. Speaking about cavalry and those "Videttes" :) again because of technical limitations we cannot make many small groups of units to call them all Vidette 1, Vidette 2 etc. but we combined into 2 units that their main purpose is to scout for the enemy and have a limited combat capability for harassing and raiding isolated artillery units.

 

The Videttes for the Union are available only at the early phases of the battle and have been a topic of hot debate within the testing forum because in early versions of the game were indeed annoyingly powerful. In later versions we fixed this issue and in the upcoming EarlyAccess version we thing we fine tuned so to be as useful as possible to please every type of player. Cavalry will have speculative role in UGG in later battles, in 3rd day especially, so we had to find a proper balance to be useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick --

Thanks for explaining the videttes. If I may say so, my primary complaint about this intention (besides the oft-repeated statement that videttes were never units), is that I am unaware of any incident at Gettysburg in which artillery was "harassed" by enemy cavalry.  Most Civil War cavalry fought on foot, unless it was fighting other cavalry. I do not recall any cavalry, at any time during the entire war, acting as mounted skirmishers and annoying artillery.

 

For starters, this would have been suicidal, as a man on foot offers a far smaller target than a man on horseback, both to canister and to round shot, and thus a dismounted skirmisher -- who, unlke his infantry counterparts, could easily load and fire while prone, and who would have been extremely inaccurate if attempting to fire his carbine while mounted -- would have been much safer from all types of artillery projectile than a man on horseback.  You will note that all of the formed cavalry on the first day quickly dismounted when it arrived on the battlefield -- they did not charge the Confederate artillery or infantry, because their officers knew very well what the result would be. So I don't even see why you need to offer this ability in the first place.

 

I don't exactly know what you mean abut having a historical meaning, as there is nothing historical about this decision. As far as pleasing every type of player, if your goal is to please people who know nothing about the Civil War, then perhaps the battle of Gettysburg is not the platform for this.  You may make your fantasy gamers happy, but in doing so, you will lose your historical gamers.  This, of course, is your decision.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

 

I want to be on the record that I respectfully disagree with your post above.  In my opinion these videttes are not fixed and continue to plague the game with an unrealistic and anachronistic unit that fundamentally alters the play balance of UGG in the favor of the Union.  These videttes can destroy as much as 10% of the CSA artillery in the first phase and alter the balance of the game for the duration of the battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Civil War cavalry fought on foot, unless it was fighting other cavalry. I do not recall any cavalry, at any time during the entire war, acting as mounted skirmishers and annoying artillery.

 

For starters, this would have been suicidal, as a man on foot offers a far smaller target than a man on horseback, both to canister and to round shot, and thus a dismounted skirmisher -- who, unlke his infantry counterparts, could easily load and fire while prone, and who would have been extremely inaccurate if attempting to fire his carbine while mounted -- would have been much safer from all types of artillery projectile than a man on horseback.  You will note that all of the formed cavalry on the first day quickly dismounted when it arrived on the battlefield -- they did not charge the Confederate artillery or infantry, because their officers knew very well what the result would be. So I don't even see why you need to offer this ability in the first place.

Doesn't Garnett count ? :D  

Seriously pretty much everything that is written by Remise. By the time of Gettyburg both sides have learned that a cavalrycharge was futile and would end in a bloody desaster. No sane commander would have even considered it so I find the option to order it in a game about Gettysburg very odd to say the least. That and the implementation of these "Videttes" sound like they would fit more into a game about the Napoleonic Wars than in a game about the American Civil War.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...