The First Gameplay Video

[MacBlain]

This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Hawk's club mods for American Conquest (from the developers of Cossacks).

 

 

I urge everyone to check them out at www.mastersofthefield.com . Might provide some food for thought.

[zurn]

Those mods have an impressive amount of maps, especially for the Napoleonic campaigns.

[Nugiman]

This bears an uncanny resemblance to the Hawk's club mods for American Conquest (from the developers of Cossacks).

 

I urge everyone to check them out at www.mastersofthefield.com . Might provide some food for thought.

 

 

Wow, what a lovely gaming society that is!

Im happy that there are still gamers that dont just play things like CoD..

[N.C.rebel]

Love it any idea on the next gameplay video, I've probably watched this a good 10 times now lol

[Calvin809]

At least one of the Hawks is modding Scourge of War Gettysburg. He has a great multiplayer mod for the game. SoW is the best battlefield command game out there now in my opinion. Nothing beats playing command (headquarters) in the saddle with couriers. http://www.sowmp.com/gcm

[Brutus]

I posted this on the facebook video, but might as well here too.

 

Looks like a great start. Some points that immediately came to mind:

-The gameplay is very fast - the units move way too quickly, and units who are falling back but still firing should not be able to move as quickly as advancing infantry, even if they are skirmishers

-You need to develop a consistent naming scheme. What is the difference between a cavalry skirmisher and dismounted cavalry? And can one become the other? Can units mount?

-Do you want to identify brigades by a nickname or a general? If I have Cutler's brigade under control, I will probably want to quickly find Meredith at some point - but no, now I have to look for "Iron Brigade". But then later I'll have to find "Paul".

-Division commanders are identified by name, but corps commanders are identified by number?

-Unit formations? Always either a double line or a column?

Don't get me wrong, this looks AWESOME and I know it's the first gameplay video. For all I know you already have these things addressed. But as someone who will absolutely purchase this game, I want to make sure I give my feedback.

Keep it up!

[David Fair]

Brutus,

 

I've had a great time testing UGG and you've identified and raised a couple of good historical accuracy points:

Units falling back should not move at the same rate as advancing infantry,

Infantry units are either line units or skirmishers and these unit designation function differently (line infantry cannot select "skirmish" formation),

Infantry units are in either double line or column (there are a few smaller brigades that deploy in a single line),

Dismounted cavalry units cannot mount.   They function like fast infantry in quasi-skirmish/fire & run formation.  This begs the question, "who do you think would win a 100 yard dash: guys running in cavalry boots wearing spurs or guys running in infantry boots?"  There are times IMHO when it is important to support the design team's decisions and not think too deeply about the historical accuracy of game implementation details.  

The mounted units you see in the video are designated "videttes" but function like a mounted 200 man Seal Team 6; attacking isolated batteries or the flanks/rear of infantry divisions to crash their morale.  Again, don't think too deeply about the historical accuracy of game implementation details.

 

 

Here are some thoughts from a game tester's perspective:

 

During the American Civil War the AoP & ANV each had units that were known by their reputation rather than the brigade commander.  The "Stonewall Brigade", "Irish Brigade", and "Iron Brigade" are examples.  The same is true for batteries that had earned a reputation.  

 

While the general rule was to identify brigades by their brigade commander units that had earned their reputation took pride in the unit distinction they had earned.  What is the benefit to throwing out historical unit designations in favor of "uniformity" in your perspective?  

 

As a game tester I can assure you that "named brigades" tell me instantly that I have selected a unit that can take and dish out better than average punishment.  Uniformity in the naming conventions would reduce player's reaction time - and, as you've noted, the game is fast.

 

Also the roman numeral distinction between Corps commands and brigades is helpful (helpful for the CSA and historically accurate for the Union).  At the pace of the game these roman numeral distinctions help the player identify and manage the pace of the game.  

 

Note also that it doesn't matter if Cutler and Meredith are deployed together because Division Commanders don't exist in UGG.  It is only important to keep I Corps together to get the benefit of the Corps Commander (though I guilty of trying to keep my units organized by division).  While keeping units organized by division would be more historically accurate it would also add a significant amount of micromanagement to a fast paced game.  Also, despite the effort to keep everything organized battles are chaotic and historically divisions ended up a bit scrambled at the end of the day.  My hunch is you'd drive players nuts if you built an RTS game based on the historical chain of command structure.  The design goal was to make an enjoyable game where players get the flavor of Gettysburg in a reasonable time scale. 

[Southern_Hunter]

Just saw the gameplay video and it certainly looks fantastic. As with others, I am concerned at how fast it flows, but, all in all, look forward to it enormously.