soldiers per battle

[Antoninus]

How many troops will there be in a battle? Obviously some scalling will be used (i doubt a tablet could simulate 150,000 soldiers) but any idea on how many will we get to command? 2K? 10K?.... 20K?

 

on a related note, is this being programmend in C/C++? I'd expect the type of game (rts) would make a managed language a rather poor choice.

[Nick Thomadis]

In some battles of the 1st day I am currently working on we get 2.500 to 3.000 soldiers per side according to our scale. So you can have around 6.000-7.000 fighting soldiers in one battle.

 

We use Unity as a base and of course we have many layers of our own code in C#, XML etc.

[Antoninus]

Thank you for the responce!

Nice to know that a managed language is viable for such a type of game. In fact 7K in pure C# sounds pretty good, you must have implemented some serious optimization (even with a spatial index I'd have thought 3-4K would be the limit).

 

Άντε και καλή επιτυχία!

[adambomb]

How exactly is the total battle going to be broken down. In several smaller ones or what?

[Nick Thomadis]

How exactly is the total battle going to be broken down. In several smaller ones or what?

 

The battle will be broken to parts that are not really small. They can hold up to 7.000 soldiers visually and replicating around 20.000 soldiers for each side.

Player will have to capture some strategic locations within a time limit but this time limit is not steady. There can be delays if for example an objective is at stake.

Next Battle will use the time offset to blend events and also will evaluate previous positions of troops so to place accordingly.

 

In short every time you play Gettysburg Battle can be different + added with different AI General characters that will challenge with different style = gives big replayability + custom battles = much bigger replayability

[adambomb]

Yes, I read about how some generals are real aggressive and some not. Is this just the Generals or the other offices also?

[Nick Thomadis]

The main AI character is for the General of the army. But officers will have all different skills that will affect their units while they are alive and near them. They can die too and they will be automatically replaced by other officers.

[The Frog]

Nick, a suggestion for historical realism: you're talking about highlighting skirmishes with about 2,500 per side, which is roughly large brigade size at Gettysburg. Because of the spring's warfare a large number of brigades were commanded by colonels already and even more took charge during the battle. The Union's First Corps, for example, had 3 of its 7 brigade commanders on the morning of the first day at the grade of colonel, and 5 of 7 by the conclusion of the battle.

 

But more importantly than what name to put on the officers, I think it brings up something else awesome about your game. The computing power of modern technology means every game is designed with the false notion that the key to the battle is Major General George Meade or General Robert E. Lee. But in reality, Gettysburg was won as much by Colonel J. Lawrence Chamberlain and Lt. Col. Rufus Dawes at the regimental level. And reading their reports, it's evident that a whole host of unknown majors and captains and lieutenants made those decisions. With the limits of numbers leading to your decision to break up the battle into its individual tactical components, you're creating a product unlike any other--one that actually reflects the dynamic experience of warfare.

 

And if you successfully create a way where success or failure then affects all future battles (i.e., achievement of the objective is not required for continuing the game), well, you've really got something, sir. So consider really focusing on colonels, and those individual moments!

[Nick Thomadis]

Nick, a suggestion for historical realism: you're talking about highlighting skirmishes with about 2,500 per side, which is roughly large brigade size at Gettysburg. Because of the spring's warfare a large number of brigades were commanded by colonels already and even more took charge during the battle. The Union's First Corps, for example, had 3 of its 7 brigade commanders on the morning of the first day at the grade of colonel, and 5 of 7 by the conclusion of the battle.

 

But more importantly than what name to put on the officers, I think it brings up something else awesome about your game. The computing power of modern technology means every game is designed with the false notion that the key to the battle is Major General George Meade or General Robert E. Lee. But in reality, Gettysburg was won as much by Colonel J. Lawrence Chamberlain and Lt. Col. Rufus Dawes at the regimental level. And reading their reports, it's evident that a whole host of unknown majors and captains and lieutenants made those decisions. With the limits of numbers leading to your decision to break up the battle into its individual tactical components, you're creating a product unlike any other--one that actually reflects the dynamic experience of warfare.

 

And if you successfully create a way where success or failure then affects all future battles (i.e., achievement of the objective is not required for continuing the game), well, you've really got something, sir. So consider really focusing on colonels, and those individual moments!

Each battle can begin as small skirmish and will escalate to big confrontation of many troops (currently battles are up to 35.000 for both sides). Map sections with the highlighted engagement will have size according to the battle needs. The good thing is that we will add the possibility of Brigade Commanders able to get severly injured or die and be replaced by a pool of officers special for the brigade. Then this can happen as you say, a random moment that another general or colonel will assume command of a force taking changing the internal game's history. But more of this later, as it is not finalised how High level Generals and officers will be represented. The sure thing is that they will play a big role in the game.

[David Fair]

Civil War enthusiasts often have their favorite "superhero" who's exploits "turned the tide of battle" (Chamberlain, Dawes...).  

 

The command chain of both armies had numerous unknown staff officers at the Corps and Army levels that were given (or had the authority to take)  temporary command of units; Note - General Warren's Statue is atop Little Round Top for a reason.  When critical commanders are wounded/KIA command might devolve to the next most senior officer.  At night commanders could assign staff officers to lead Brigade or Corps commands vacated by casualties.

 

If it helps sell the game to have a "superhero" designation for a leader that's fine.  But for those of us who believe the chain of command was where critical decisions were made and the battle was won/lost it would be preferable not to be encumbered with the, "host of unknown majors and captains and lieutenants".

 

The design decision to encumber the game with player modified "superheros" should be made in the context of game play.  Personally I prefer a randomized leadership metrics to reduce the predictability of results and increase the re-playability.  (Avoids - Superhero Colonel X should always be at the most critical point of the line).

 

It's important to keep "superheros" in perspective: 

1) Dawes captured 200 rebs in the railroad cut.  

2) Chamberlain's 266 men,   the 20th was considered a weak link in Vincent’s brigade (see http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/gettysburg/gettysburg-history-articles/defense-of-little-round-top.html)

On Little Round Top the 120 experienced combat veterans from the 2nd Maine brought the 20th’s ranks up to 386 infantrymen and helped hold Chamberlain’s wobbling line together.  Chamberlain had orders to shoot the mutineers if they refused duty.

 

When their ammunition had almost run out, Chamberlain decided to fix bayonets and charge down into the two Alabama regiments. Chamberlain later said he communicated his decision to counterattack to Captain Ellis Spear, the acting battalion commander of the unit’s left flank. Spear, however, claimed he received no such orders.  Corporal Elisha Coan, a member of the 20th Maine’s color guard, claimed that 1st Lt. Holman S. Melcher, the acting commander of Company F, actually conceived the idea to advance the colors and that Colonel Chamberlain initially hesitated, fearing that it would be extremely hazardous. Coan said other officers joined Melcher in urging a forward movement.  Melcher sprang out in front of the line with his sword flashing. Captain Spear said he never received a formal order to charge — he charged only after he saw the colors start forward.  Melcher ordered them forward because they were not sure if the colonel had sanctioned the attack. 

 

One of the problems with "superheros" is the memories of those who served with them.  Ask John Kerry about his swift boat service vs. the men who served with him.  It doesn't matter where the truth is; the point is that UGG is a game and should be enjoyable to play/replay.

[Remise]

Since we have moved from scale to "superheroes," here is my two cents worth:

 

Another problem with "superheroes" is that one stray bullet makes them irrelevant.  A lot of heroes died at Gettysburg, including some officers (such as Reynolds, to use an obvious example) who were considered the finest at their level of command.  

 

My theory of game design at this level is that we assume the lower ranks for the most part, know their jobs. That's one reason games where you, the army commander, determine whether a gun crew should be loading case shot, roundshot, or canister annoy me.

 

Now, when it comes to officers from brigade commander up, I do think that there should definitely be marked characteristics.  There is a general, so to speak, consensus that Ewell's timidity in the first day might have cost Lee a quick victory, when he interpreted Lee's weak order to take Cemetery Hill "if practicable," were the words I think Lee used.  Ewell decided that his boys were tired, and instead did nothing.  You can bet this would not have been Jackson's decision, were he still alive at the time.  The differences between their characters would be a great asset to the game. Plus you need this stuff anyway for the AI.

 

By the way, heroes in all wars are usually created after the fact.  Because of the movie "Gettysburg," Chamberlain is probably better-known to most non-students of history than is Meade. But I would argue that if there was in fact one hero at Gettysburg on the Union side, that would have been General Greene in his outstanding defense of Culp's Hill against what should have been overwhelming odds.

 

But who has even heard of Greene (at the time, considered the army's outstanding expert on field fortifications, as well as, I believe, being the oldest general at the battle)?

 

B.C. Milligan

[David Fair]

Game design variables are really important.  

 

It would be great if there were historical settings for corps commanders.  My interest in UGG is to do the research to make the adjustments to command and control variables to enjoy a game experience that includes my own personalized corps commander preferences.  This is all about the UI and the freedom to adjust a few critical knobs to make the game experience unique to my tastes.  If I want to play a game where Jackson had survived and I want to adjust Ewell's capabilities to mimic Jackson potential performance why not?

 

It would be good to have both a randomized option and player adjusted options for commander capabilities.

It bugs me when senior commander capabilities are static and I'm forced to play with a command profile that I believe to be wrong.

 

 

It might be possible to extend command and control in a game to division leaders; but brigade?

 

In my opinion the amount of research to get the brigade level leaders correct would be a huge undertaking; and it would be wrong anyway because the amount of research and interpretation plus the thin data on most brigade commanders would result in an unpredictably skewed implementation.  

 

Additionally, it gets tough to manage a command and control system when you have more that about 4 commanders/corps in any real time environment.  Think about the burden of clicking on at least 13 more items in UGG during a battle (CSA w/ 1 CinC, 3 Corps Commanders, 9 Division Commanders).  The Union would be more complex.  My hunch is that command and control will be limited to corps or division level leaders because unit granularity is already at the brigade level.  

 

Finally note that if you get annoyed selecting battery ammunition just imagine trying to juggle brigade leaders based on game-defined capabilities in a command and control system.  This level of detail would drive us all nuts.

 

 

 

 

PS - 

Thanks for the observation on the battery ammunition selection.

[dagdamor1]

This talk of 'superheroes' and able officers brings a question to my mind regarding the concept that most RTS refer to as "Veterancy." In all honesty, I don't think it could or should factor into this particular Ultimate General installment whatsoever, with only a few days of combat, but it is something to think about should a longer campaign or even the implementation of a campaign map be in the works for future installments.

 

And I don't think Darth would likely settle for a shiny metal stripe or chevron 'magically' bestowing increased fighting or command capabilities upon the unit, perhaps something more gradual but still recognizable enough to be acknowledged and factored into the players' decisions.

[adambomb]

Having commanders with different attributes each time will make the game really interesting with all the different results each time.  Maybe have a little background on each officer each game so you would at least have a feel for the officers you will be commanding.

[Tormidal]

If the scale is going to be visually 7,000 or so men for parts, will there be graphic settings to have ever soldier represented?

[Peter]

I don't know if this would be possible for you within your game limit, but could you please put in the option to increase the unit scale even up to 1:1. All you have to do is include an obvious warning that only very high end machines will cope with the higher unit scaling. It just means me and my desktop have a more epic visual time than tiny tim on his brand new ipad.

[N.C.rebel]

Would be cool if this was in regimental form instead of brigades.