Next Ultimate General game

[Armbed General]

Will there be next Ultimate General after Civil War ? If yes then anyone know what will be the time period ?

 

I'm kinda worry since devs are already working on Ultimate Admiral and thus gonna stalled development of next Ultimate General game, if there's indeed any

[pandakraut]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/502520/discussions/0/2792747297865913727/

[Armbed General]

Finally, at least they indeed working on something, other than Ultimate Admiral.

From the look of it, looks like America wars of independence

And hopefully, it will include campaign mode this time

[DeRuyter]

3 hours ago, Armbed General said:

Finally, at least they indeed working on something, other than Ultimate Admiral.

From the look of it, looks like America wars of independence

And hopefully, it will include campaign mode this time

Makes sense because they could use the land combat part of UA for faster development of a larger scale AWI campaign game. Frankly UA was a development of UG essentially using the same basic game engine. I am still holding out hope for a UG Napoleonic Wars though!

[Raymond Sebastien]

I hope they will include the Seven Years' War, 1754–63 in North America (like a mini campaign or extension.). I loved that UGCW is not graphically hungry and can be played on any PC or gaming tablet, and I hope it will stay that way. I also hope that the multiplayer mode will be present this time around (co-op included). This last point is what UGCW is terribly lacking, but this is only my personal opinion.

[pauloh]

Something like...this? https://www.ug1775.com/

 

[Cavalry Enthusiast]

Yes, something like that. I will admit I am a little disappointed we didn't get Ultimate General: Napoleonic Wars, but hey, you can't get everything you want. And this looks pretty sweet as well.

[Bronze]

This would be a good build up to Napoleanic Wars.

 

[mitth'raw'nuruodo]

This is very disappointing. I thought people voted for Napoleonic Wars. What was the point of that?

Napoleonic Wars have so much more to offer. Large variety of soldiery, from many more nations. Greater tactical scope with troops like cavalry playing a larger more diversified role. Chokeful of legendary generals and marshals.

This seems like a cop out. Back once again, in tired old America for the fifth time. Another war with only two sides, largely without any great tactical or strategic masterpieces or masterminds, where the side fighting at home greatly outnumbering the opposition wins.

Edited October 15, 2020 by mitth'raw'nuruodo

[KeithD]

It doesn't sound too appealing does it.

The battles in the wars of Independance were little more than skirmishes in comparison to the European battles, even the largest barely more than a handful of regiments and 10,000 a side.  Sounds very underwhelming.

[daztek]

On 10/16/2020 at 12:04 AM, mitth'raw'nuruodo said:

This is very disappointing. I thought people voted for Napoleonic Wars. What was the point of that?

 

Game Labs seem to be building up to it. American Revolution adds a lot of new systems, especially the new real-time campaign and a maritime game imported from their other naval games. Every addition builds on the system. They will have that much more code and more developed systems for when they do finally turn to the Napoleonic wars. 

[LAVA]

11 hours ago, daztek said:

 

Game Labs seem to be building up to it. American Revolution adds a lot of new systems, especially the new real-time campaign and a maritime game imported from their other naval games. Every addition builds on the system. They will have that much more code and more developed systems for when they do finally turn to the Napoleonic wars. 

Well... I'm quite hyped.

From what I can tell, this game will incorporate an Operational Level between the Strategic and Tactical levels. The Operational Level combines Strategic decisions (such as movement, supply and intelligence) and ties them to the Tactical Level (battles). If your troops don't have adequate supply (food) then you are going to lose men by attrition. You don't have adequate intelligence and you are going to blunder into superior forces. Many games have tried to incorporate the Operational Level in their games and pretty much all of them have failed.

As an example, anyone play Grand Tactician: Civil War? I had high hopes for this game, unfortunately, it is a mess. It is so complicated that one cannot determine which features actually work. The battles take place on pre-constructed battlefields and not on the actual ground of the map. Movement of troops is so bewildering that it turns fighting a major battle into a major pain in the ass.

UGAR is a sand box game, which means that where ever the combat occurs, that is where you will fight on the map. It will almost certainly use an already proven and easy to use UI for the movement of troops.

This game will be a giant step forward in the incorporation of all levels of warfare into a playable strategic based game.

And I can't wait to play it.

[JaM]

my only worry about UG:AR is the new "focus" system, where you only control units you have with your commander..  Because people like to play the game, not the game to play itself without player interference

[mitth'raw'nuruodo]

On 11/21/2020 at 7:49 AM, daztek said:

 

Game Labs seem to be building up to it. American Revolution adds a lot of new systems, especially the new real-time campaign and a maritime game imported from their other naval games. Every addition builds on the system. They will have that much more code and more developed systems for when they do finally turn to the Napoleonic wars. 

People said the same thing in the last game. Next game could be the Indian Wars adding colony development as feature. Then Mexican Wars, adding improved 3d graphics. Next game, Civil War 2.

They could have built up to it using the Peninsular Campaign, or the Third Coalition. They simply do not want to get out of America for some reason.

USA has seen a few wars in its short history, some of which were important historical events. But as settings for a wargame, they are all dreadfully drab and awfully limited. If Ultimate General is ever to reach its full tactical and strategic potential, it desperately needs to looks outside of USA.

I have no doubt it will be a good game. But a Napoleonic one would have been a lot more fun, and a lot more refreshing.

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by mitth'raw'nuruodo

[mitth'raw'nuruodo]

If anyone is interested in a Napoleonic wargame similar in scope and depth to Ultimate General, I highly recommend John Tiller's Napoleonic Campaigns. They are turn-based and bit old-school, but have many gameplay elements that should interest fans of Ultimate General - full-scale armies with detailed orders of battle, each org element with its own unique leader, ability to offload command of a division to AI (with specific objectives), a lite strategic campaign that gives purpose to battles etc. It is notoriously complex and cerebral, but that should not be an issue with Ultimate General players. They are almost exclusively covered by this youtuber, if you want to get a taste.

There is Scourge of War Waterloo as well. But Waterloo is to Napoleonic Wars = American Revolutionary War is to history of warfare - small, limited, unbalanced, lacking masterminds and masterpieces, forgone conclusion. And the developers have disbanded. So there will be no Scourge of War: Austerlitz, or Scourge of War: Eylau etc.

[bwcamp]

The series shows so much potential, I honestly don't care what era they place it in, as long as it is balanced and fun

[Cavalry Enthusiast]

To me it don't really matter all that much if we get ACW 2 or the Napoleonic era in the game following UG: 1778. But there is one thing I'd like to see.

Lancer cavalry and horse artillery.

Being mostly interested in winning with cavalry tactics the oppertunities to take horse artillery for fast movement of guns to support cavalry manouvers and lancer cavalry to try my skill with a type of cavalry that can quickly break their targets in chock actions are things I would really want to get my hands on.

Yeah, I can hear you laughing at the lances, but I want to see if I can make them carry the day with combined arms tactics and get a cavalry that can be equipped to deliver a more brutal charge than the sabre can at present.

[bwcamp]

I'm interested in the potential this rts has. They could stick with the timeframe they are in, pre-modern gun warfare with horses cannons, ect, or they could expand. Modern warfare, WW1, WW2, nowadays wars, they could even go back to melee wars. Medieval times, ancient rome, rise of the aztecs empire, ect. There are so many possibilities, I just hope they don't go the total war route and make the games arcady

[Galiat]

I'm waiting also for an Ultimate General: Napoleonic wars.  As I'm European, it's a period that I know better than American civil war.

And as said previoulsy, much more nation, huge cavalery charges. It can be refreshing. A multiplayer would be great too.

Anyway, this game is lot of fun when managing on the fields troops. We have more time to move, make flanking, without checking every second every units. It's much more manageable than a Total War game. This is what I like.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Galiat

[Royal Fusilier]

The Devs did say that they are definitely doing a Napoleonic game and I figure that UG: AR will be used as a way to work up to what will be a major undertaking with Napoleonic warfare. In the meantime, I am really looking forward to UG: AR!