Update game

[Adrian]

Can you make more different uniform soldiers and blood in game on PC? and charge of cavalry on infantry?

[TheCenturion]

From what I've seen, there are several different types of units, though I don't think there were massive variations on uniforms in the CW. At least not on a level really worthwhile to change considering the zoomed out perspective on the game. Blood is an aesthetics thing, and again would be silly in my opinion, but that's all up to Darth. 

 

Not sure what you mean by cav charging.

[Adrian]

TheCenturion look

charge cavalry. Sid Meier's Antietam - massive variation of uniforms Civil War

[TheCenturion]

I had a feeling that's what you meant... that video isn't exactly depicting the Civil War though, is it? From my limited understanding, cavalry charges weren't used often in the Civil War due the development of rifled muskets. Melee charges weren't very practical, and I think started to fall out around the same time as this war. Anybody who knows more about this than me, feel free to correct me though.

 

On the uniforms, yes, I suppose there were lots of variations. But Sid's games used large character graphics to represent units, which obviously had far more detail than the little guys in Ultimate General. Since the UG sprites are probably fairly low res, I'm not sure how much detail can be realistically depicted within them. 

[Calvin809]

Cavalry was used differently during the American Civil War compared to European style Napoleonic warfare. During the Civil War cavalry was used to gather recon on enemy positions and prevent enemy cavalry from doing the same. They also would perform raids behind enemy lines against supply lines. They could also attack routing enemy but I can't think of any major battle where cavalry charged a line of infantry. There were a few large cavalry battles such as Brandy Station which was the largest cavalry battle in North America but that was mostly cavalry against cavalry. Also at the Battle of Gettysburg they halted the Confederate advance on Gettysburg until more Federal units could arrive but they were fighting dismounted. As for in close melee fighting there are different views on how much melee fighting actually happened during the Civil War. Union hospital records for wounds treated showed very low amounts of bayonet wounds (about 1000 total for the whole war). On the other hand there are tons of personal recollections/journals from soldiers who fought during the war that mention hand to hand combat. I think it did occur quite a bit but it did not last long (there are exceptions such as the Mule Shoe salient during the Battle of Spotsylvania)  and it really was not part of a battle tactic like it would have been for a Napoleonic era battle where you would get in close to unleash a volley then bayonet charge...or push in with an attack column.

[Tomakaze]

Most cavalry commanders stayed away from charging.  Horses, particularly in the South, were typically supplied by the soldiers and they didn't want to have their horses killed.

 

Look at Gen. Judson Kilpatrick who became known as "Kilcavalry".  You don't earn a name like that with "gallant" cavalry charges that hearken to Napoleonic times such as your Eylau example.  He charged the Confederates in the battle of Gettysburg on July 3 and suffered horrendous losses.  It just didn't happen much.

 

As far as uniforms go, I think it would be cool for the Iron Brigade to have the black hats, but I don't think it is an issue.

[Adrian]

CIVIL WAR CAVALRY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uniforms http://14thbrooklyn.info/14GETTY.HTM

              http://historyandancestry.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-berdans-sharpshooter-uniform/

              http://www.eveningsun.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5241893

[David Fair]

Infantry in UGG is almost completely at brigade-level granularity (there are a few exceptions).  Brigades were made up of multiple regiments.  Because the game is zoomed out there is no variation in uniforms (this improves game performance).

 

At the start of the war there were a vast variety of uniforms on both sides; but, as the war dragged on the South tended to be dressed in home-spun, butternut, or very dark brown (the South used substantial quantities of Union blue uniforms that were captured and dyed with acorn shells - resulting in a dark brown color that was distinguishable from Union blue).  By 1863 the idea of a "uniform" for the South was really a misnomer.  The most identifiable attribute of units was their flag; both national and regimental.  Units on both sides were recognizable to each other by their colors. 

 

While there were still some variations in uniform in the AoP by the time of Gettysburg the vast majority of Union soldiers were dressed in blue.  Sharpshooters did wear green; but, there numbers were militarily irrelevant at Gettysburg (about 350 total).  Note that in UGG there are a couple of sharpshooter units but they are dressed in blue.

 

Cavalry during the American Civil War had the option of fighting each other or getting out of the way.  They rarely tangled with infantry.  When cavalry was confronted with infantry their choice was inaction or suicide due to the range, accuracy, and reload rates of the rifled musket.  Cavalry charges during the Civil War (similar to your Eylau video) would be an anachronism. 

 

Note that Buford's "Cavalry Stand" at Gettysburg is mostly a myth (or at least not anything like the stand of the famous 300).  Buford lost 100 men total during his "stand".  His men fought from the prone position so they were difficult to identify.  Buford ordered his cavalry guidons furled and held in the rear; hoping that the CSA troops would mistake his troopers for infantry (Pennsylvania militia specifically (Pennsylvania militia units were not issued flags)).  Buford also deployed his 6 artillery pieces across his front and kept it firing to create a smoke screen to ensure his troopers were not easily identifiable.

 

Note also that the CSA troops had been ordered by General Lee to avoid bringing on a general engagement.   It took the CSA infantry a significant amount of time to reconnoiter and flank Buford's position.  By that point Union infantry had arrived on McPherson's Ridge.  Buford's men fired just about every round of cavalry carbine ammunition available keeping the Confederates at bay.  On July 2, Buford requested, and Meade approved, the withdrawal of Buford's men.  They were sent 14 miles away to the railhead in Maryland to replenish their ammunition supply and guard supply wagons that were shuttling between the AoP and this railhead resupply point.

 

The CSA's caution and "Buford's Ruse" morphed into a  heroic "stand".  The moral - the victors often get the privilege of writing the history books.  

 

It was not until the adoption of the the repeating rifle that Union cavalry was able to stand up to CSA infantry.  At Gettysburg only a few hundred repeaters had been issued to the AoP and these were used exclusively on the East Cavalry Field.

[Adrian]

Can you make destroyed cannon or take the gun by infantry and traces of the missiles in the ground.?

[David Fair]

I'm a tester - not a developer; but, at the current test versions you can't capture guns or men.  The only thing you "capture" are topographical features on the map that have been assigned an arbitrary "point value" (i.e., Culp's Hill 2,500).  Results of the Phase are determined by a combination of topographical capture points and the losses of men to take these locations.  These results determine a player's options for the next Phase.

 

Artillery is a bit of an abstraction in UGG - If you look closely at Darth's Gameplay Video you'll notice that the artillery batteries don't list the type of guns or the number of guns in the battery.  For example the information available for artillery units is:  "Lieut James Stewart - I Corps Battery B".

 

Losses of guns are listed in the summary only - so when you lose a gun you can't tell which battery lost the gun.   The summary list current number of men and guns in the current Phase.

 

I don't know what the plans are for the future.

 

Check out the topic, "First Gameplay Video" to see the traces of artillery missiles.

[Adrian]

very important is capture enemy guns in game. ( Sid meiers Gettysburg)

[David Fair]

Inflicting casualties, capturing guns, battle standards, and prisoners were the metrics for victory during the Civil War.  The fifth most important thing was how far you pushed the enemy around; capturing topographical locations.  

 

I absolutely agree with your statement.  I've never been a fan of arbitrary "victory point" locations in games.  IMO they force the players to follow "scripted" strategies and reduce the amount of "strategy" in "strategy games".  

[Adrian]

I understand capture topographical location( sid meiers gettysburg) but very import is also capture enemy guns and shooting to enemy during the game (sid meiers gettysburg)

[Calvin809]

I also agree that capture points do limit strategy since the main goal is to drive the enemy from the field/destroy the enemies army.

[Adrian]

watch David Fair 720 p HD sid meiers Gettysburg. Rebel 52 nd NC attack union cannon and destroyed cannon. In this game you can destroy or capture cannon.  

[David Fair]

Adrian,

 

Thanks for the post.  Sid's Gettysburg was a good game at the time so it will be interesting to see how UGG evolves.

[Adrian]

David Fair you are tester so tell developer new ideas  ( from sid meiers gettysburg) to UGG

[David Fair]

Adrian,

 

I'll get on it right away!

 

Thanks for your passion.

[David Fair]

Adrian,

 

Please add additional information if I've missed anything.  

 

The context of you comment is important for victory metrics generally.  With this in mind I've put the artillery capture issue in with a number of other victory metrics.  In Nick's video you can see that kills and topographical points are the only metrics used to determine victory.  

 

Historically, kills and kill ratios are usually mentioned at the bottom of official battle reports from the American Civil War.  Commanders themselves preferred alternative metrics in their official correspondence and I'd suggest that it is worth considering these first-hand metrics as a guideline for scenario success and impact on morale.  I've listed these in priority order; which I believe is from the unit up the chain of command:

 

Capturing an enemy unit's battle flag was a huge honor personally for the Civil War soldier; and reflected positively on the self image and reputation of the unit.  Tom Custer (General George Armstrong Custer's brother) received two Medals of Honor for capturing two regimental standards (Second North Carolina cavalry May 11, 1863 and second standard on April 6, 1865).  The number of standard's captured is a tangible abstraction measuring how badly the enemy was defeated.  Flags were beloved regimental symbols and losing a standard was devastating to the reputation and morale of a unit primarily because it meant the unit had suffered catastrophic casualties.  The loss of a regimental standard was also the loss of regimental command and control on the battlefield; when the flag advanced the soldiers advanced.  When a unit routed they rallied to their flag to reorganize and re-equip.  The flag and the color guard were ordered to stay with the regimental commander.  The first line of first hand Civil War battle report is always: "...defeated enemy capturing 4 regimental colors..."

 

The second metric of success is the number of cannons captured.  Again this was a tangible abstraction for the number of enemy positions overrun by a command. At Gettysburg 7 Union batteries were overrun (about 10% of all Union guns).  All but about 6 of these guns were retaken by Union forces.   

 

The third metric of battlefield performance is the number of enemy units routed.  Routing an enemy unit had an electric impact on the men.  The 160 men of the 8th Ohio's reputation soared after their flanking fire routed the left flank division of Pickett's Charge. 

 

The fourth metric for battlefield performance was friendly units/commands that routed.  General Doubleday's career (I Corps) was effectively destroyed by General Howard's (XI Corps) battlefield report.  There are conflicting accounts regarding the sequence of events of the Union rout at the end of Day 1; but commanders, officers, and unit reputations took critical morale hits when routed.

 

The fifth metric for battlefield performance is the number of prisoners taken.  This metric was more of an "After Action Report" compiled at the corps and army level.

 

The sixth metric was the distance advanced.  Note - not the terrain features captured; but the distance from the start of conflict to the positions at the close of conflict.  Grant's battlefield reports at Shilo are an excellent example.  If I recollect properly Grant's metrics follow this precise order in his battle report.  Something like, "...we drove the Rebels back 2 miles and retook our original positions..."

 

Finally, casualty metrics are the final statistics in first hand battle reports.  I think there are two reasons for this.  Primarily men with command responsibilities (with a few exceptions (Stonewall Jackson, Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, George Armstrong Custer...) are pained by the loss the men under their command.  Secondly, enemy losses were difficult to calculate and enemy losses were frequently exaggerated by commanders and the media.  In UGG we have an immediate computer tally of losses; but in reality this metric reports the numbers rather than the state of the units comprising the army and how much fight remains in the army.  Consider the Peninsula Campaign.  Lee lost 30% more men during the Seven Days Battles near Richmond.  But he shattered the morale of George B. McClellan and forced the Union army to withdraw.  Among the Civil War casualties was my relative Robin Leach.  We have his letters from the Peninsula Campaign and it is clear that he was a man in a unit that believed they were winning the battles and he couldn't understand why the generals were ordering the troops to retreat.  Gettysburg could have had a similar result.

 

At Gettysburg Lee was trying to avoid a repeat of Antietam.  He was trying to isolate and defeat elements of the Army of the Potomac and claim victory before the Yankees could concentrate their forces and force the Army of Northern Virginia into a slugfest.  He knew losing his army in Pennsylvania would be losing the war.  Lee also knew that he couldn't keep his army concentrated at Gettysburg because there is a limited time an army of 70,000 men can sit in one location without exhausting the local supply of food and fodder.  When Lee lost his mobility he lost the Gettysburg Campaign unless he could score a quick victory; which is why he attacked ferociously for 3 days.  On the 4th day he stayed at Gettysburg to draw off his supply trains and wounded and hoped that the "Old Snappin' Turtle" Meade would attack Lee's forces.

 

I've asked the UGG team to consider these alternative metrics for game results.  In my humble opinion focusing exclusively on topographical points and kills for win/loss metrics is both unrealistic and won't help attract players to the game.  I agree kills is a key metric; but not the sole measure of a battle won or lost.

[Adrian]

David Fair you are Great:) where do you live? Do you know when the game will be ready? (My suggestion - horses must pull cannon in game)

[David Fair]

I have no idea when the game will be released.  

 

It would be great to have limbers in the game; but, because the game is targeted at tablets I don't think this is possible in the initial product release.  

 

I'm living in the NE region of the USA.

[Adrian]

next battle after Gettysburg:)?

[Snipe Twitchel]

It was said at one time that we would have access to this game in early 2014. We are just about to run out of early 2014.

[TheCenturion]

It was said at one time that we would have access to this game in early 2014. We are just about to run out of early 2014.

 

No, no. When a developer says 'early 2014', they really mean 'late 2015', silly.

But in seriousness, release dates are hard to stick to, especially when you release so much preview stuff afterwards and get a brick wall of suggestions and opinions to the face.

[David Fair]

Personally, as a tester, in my opinion the delay is a good thing.  There were serious issues to address.  

 

Generically with any history game the designers need to make a choice between "history" and "game".  These are two discreet targets; each with a bullseye.  No designer has been successful having it both ways.  If you try to shoot between the communities you'll likely miss both targets.  

 

If you satisfy the "gamers" you have stuff like artillery tracers and bodies flying through the air, charging cavalry.  Exciting graphics are really important.  

 

If you satisfy the grognards then stuff like "cavalry had the choice of inaction or suicide against infantry during the American Civil War" or "50,000 rounds of artillery ammunition was fired at Gettysburg and most of these artillery rounds didn't hit anything" is important. For many grognards graphics are less important than getting the game to perform "historically accurate enough" to be interesting.  Too much "game" stuff drives grognards away (e.g., did any grognards seriously interested in history buy "Age of Empires"?).

 

My hope is that UGG will be a step in the direction of merging the game and gognard communities.  But, I'm concerned that with Tablets as the design target the tension for resources will limit the implementation making a merger less likely. 

 

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

On the other hand if the UGG team is using this time to integrate Cavalry into Gettysburg then it will only lead to the next "brick wall of suggestions" from a broader audience that will be divided along the "game" vs. "history" fracture line.