Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

What period would you like the next Ultimate General game to be set in?


  

131 members have voted

  1. 1. What period should the next UG game be set in?

    • Antiquity
      6
    • the Middle Ages
      1
    • Renaissance (1450-1600)
      8
    • 17th century (1601-1700)
      6
    • 18th century (1701-1792)
      15
    • the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815)
      56
    • Post-Napoleonic era (1815-1914)
      13
    • World War 1 (1914-18)
      14
    • World War 2 (1939-1945)
      9
    • The Cold War (1945-1989)
      2
    • Post Cold War world (1989-)
      1


Recommended Posts

I got an idea how we can work out what kind of game the developers should make after UGG. Dunno if they approve it or not.

 

First in this topic the players will cast a vote about what period the next game should be. After a set period of time (a few weeks?) The poll will be over and a new topic will be opened where people will propose specific battles from that period. After that, a 3rd thread would be created where people would vote for specific battles and the winning one will be portrayed in the next game. Like it? 

 

I want the maximum possible number of people to vote in this thread. People should be invited to register on this forum just to vote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I would like to see a game that has several games included.

Lets say, one during the roman empire, one during the middle ages, one during the nopoleonic wars, one during the world wars, and one duribg modern society.

All those games are connected in a way that when you build a city for example at a sertain place it would become availeble too on the other ages aboveve that area at the same place. And people could upgrade it and use the knowledge of that certain place that previous players have created there.

I know its quite intruiging and difficult to understand.

But it needs some more thinking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'd much prefer a change in more ways than just reskinning and new battlefields, so I'd like to see something like Renaissance or the early 18th century/late 17th century. But what I'd really like to see more is an in-game map editor/scenario editor. Similar to what's had in the game Pike and Shot. This would give the game much more replayability than it has currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As far as marketing goes, a game set in WW1 would go over much better, as we are comming up on the centennial of the Armistice.

Also industry wide game devs seem to be on some sort of unofficial 'hiatus' from WW2 games and some WWI FPS games are already in production (Verdun for example).

 

Edit:  Also don't think a WW1 game would require as much work as a Napoleon era game because Cavalry would need heavy work in a Waterloo chapter, but WW1 was still about massed artillery fire, infantry charges on hardpoints.  Would just need to add fortification effects, gas effects, and possibly air recon.

Edited by VictusB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Personally, I'd like one of the next UG games to take place during the Seven Years War (1756-63), a conflict which saw a relatively young Prussia survive against a formidable coalition made of France, Austria and Russia mostly thanks to the military genius of its king, Frederick II "The Great" (a man referring to whom, when his armies occupied Prussia in the early 19th century, Napoleon said that "Today we wouldn't be here as winners if he would be still alive").

 

It is a scenario which has great potential while at the same time having being not so overrepresented like e.g. the Napoleonic wars (of which it retains basically the same military structures and concepts) and which might constitute a refreshing innovation in the tactical genre.

Edited by IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Napoleonic would be good, agreed.  But the mid-19th century has been almost untouched in computer war games.  Franco Prussian, Austro Prussian, Franco Austrian wars are all great prospects to be developed.  WWI IF it was early war period and not the trench "meat-grinder" time period.  Later period would require a LOT of development of machine guns, long-range artillery, aircraft, tanks, etc.  Much easier to do wars that are closely related to the Gettysburg era...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW1 and up are not good choices for the game imo. The scale of modern battle is just too immense to represent properly in UG. In WW1 battles we're often talking about hundreds of thousands of men strewn across many miles of front; we're talking about artillery capable of firing accurately many miles over the horizon. Artillery would almost certainly have to be represented as an off-map "spell" or cast ability of some sort. To accurately represent controlling a battle during this time period, the game would have to "zoom out" to the point where the game would devolve into topography maps and flag icons. It would be almost purely strategy without a tactical element. The only way it would work in UG would be to focus on brigade or division level engagements only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Napoleonic Era could be easily "skinned" from the current game, with some tuning and new battlefields of course. :)

I think that pretty much any period from early renaissance when fire arms frist became relatively common, through the Franco-Prussian War would be relatively easy to adapt this game system to. SImply because the methods of warfare didn't alter all that much during that time frame. At the very least, the late 1500 through 1880...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Napoleon is pretty interesting, but the Civil War on a larger scale is something I'd just kill for. The one thing I love about UG is that despite not modeling all the troops in a unit? It stills says a large number, instead of cutting it down to a few hundred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

mostly because there is already a 7 years war game (even though graphically not very appealing).. plus, i think Napoleonic tactics were a bit more advanced than middle 18.century linear tactics..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love it as I have since elementary school , Napoleonics is harder than the preceding or following periods to represent well whether on the tabletop or in a video game, and impossible to satisfy everyone. The introduction of the impulse tactics by the French against linear tactics and then the evolving various reforms by others plus the interactions of the 3 arms make it complex and complicated - there is a challenge in making it playable, attractive,  and paced well for gameplay. But based on UGG and your track record, might come close.    

 

The much broader roles of cavalry in particular complicate things a lot. Smoke, variations in elevation plus concealment, an eye for opportunity and speed enabled historical cavalry officers to "game" combat successfully in ways hard to do with a player's ability to know everything his units see and be unaffected by banks of smoke that conceal, confuse, and even affect the sound of battle. 

 

UGG's choice of the brigade rather than regimental level as the maneuver element for players was a wise one in making the game AI and mechanics work better and have the right feel and look on the map (i.e., avoiding squadrons, regiments and batteries running around in different directions). Been there, done that..

 

If you tackle Napoleonics, I suggest that the regiment or demi-brigade or equivalent size infantry tactical formation of multiple battalions be the maneuver element corresponding gamewise to the UGG brigade. The reasons are articulated well in the Field of Glory Napoleonics miniatures rules (you'll find my review of them on Amazon - was impressed by some of the other elegant mechanics of gameplay as well).  A video game can actually display the in some detail the formations and internal evolutions of the maneuver elements in the course of the battle well enough to satisfy those who want to see the details.  And it avoids allowing or encouraging bogging things down with micromanaged battalions. Letting the officer in charge handle the evolutions of his battalions or squadrons gives look and feel but can keep the player at the general or marshal's level and move things along. It is a really nice feel to command a couple of corps and have that feel but also see the key elements of tactical interaction represented.

 

But I'll probably buy whatever you come up with (will get Naval Action too), but that requires higher Direct X than I have right now. I'm already giving UGG  as a good gift through Steam to people with a related interest. 

Edited by MikeK
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...