Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Feedback Patch v1.6


Recommended Posts

While we progress on a new game of the Ultimate General series we offer to you another update, in order to polish and improve the gameplay and AI. As you have asked, now the game should be equally challenging by playing with both sides. One reason for this is that melee and charges are far more decisive.

 

Furthermore, with all the new changes, the battles tend to play more dynamically as well as realistically, so virtually anytime you play the battle campaign may continue much differently, according to the tactics involved and the AI opponent. And of course the multiplayer battles got extra care in balances that you requested. So finally, here it is the patch v1.6 and its contents.

 


 

PS. The patch is now available on the Steam version of the game. GOG.com and Mac Store versions are going to be updated asap. Till then, some multiplayer glitches and instability are expected when meeting players of these platforms. We are sorry for this inconvenience.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

There must have been some quiet changes under the table because the CSA feels like utter crap right now. A few days ago I was performing a masterful massacre of Union troops on every difficulty level. Now I'm watching Archer pop an entire volley into an enemy skirmish troop at full troop numbers and he's only killing 20 troops a volley. One union militia brigade unit of 750 outshoot a 2200 troops under Joseph Davis. Something strange is going on here.

 

Then I switch to the US. Too easy. The CSA will often just sit their troops out in the open, allowing you to wittle down their troops with heavy cannon fire. Unless you are a complete moron, you troops are just too overpowered to worry about danger. You will mow down literally everything.

 

You guys sure you buffed Confederacy? It feels like you may have buffed the Union by accident. Especially considering their artillery. Way OP.

Edited by GrandGeneralRevshawn
Link to post
Share on other sites

{V 1.6 - Rev. 11185}                                                        

ANV // Custom // Determined.

 

I am sure you are aware of this AI(AoP)Brigades routing thru Player's Brigade:

13:48- 1353: Iron Brigade

14:17-14:21: Paul's Brigade

14:29: Cutler

http://imgur.com/a/eQ1f7

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This update has overpowered the CSA to the point of unplayability. I've watched Federal troops with 75% cover be demolished by Confederate Infantry that is not even within firing range. I genuinely feel guilty for using Federal infantry t this point, because no matter where I place them or what I do, any brigade that is fired upon is guaranteed to be ravaged. I can still win, but only because Union artillery is hugely overpowered. This is also a problem as in actual Civil War battles, the rifle was more dangerous then the cannon. 

Honestly, this game was so perfect in September (I think that was around update 14.5), ever since then, the game has been undergoing changes which I find utterly baffling, artillery has become incredibly unfair, and the Confederates seemed to have been armed with Kevlar and machine guns. 

:( I miss the old version.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The balance does feel a bit off, it kind of reminds me of vanilla UGG. I played a few MP games as Reb and as Union and I definitely had a much easier time as Reb, if only for the ability to ravage the opposition with charges, especially as the artillery nerf has greatly reduced the "stopping power" of Union firepower. Maybe it's a question of adapting tactics, but the deck seems to be a bit stacked against the Union player as things stand.

 

One other thing I don't like is the fact that brigades fight on despite ludicrous levels of casualties (80%?). I get that this might have been done to give brigades more "shelf life" in the SP campaign, but it feels really weird in MP.

Edited by Jugashvili
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the aspects of the ACW that makes it unique in the annals of military history is that both sides were trained and armed almost identically.  Captured guns and ammunition could be almost immediately provisioned to units with appropriate caliber requirements.  

 

Over the course of the four-year conflict these similarities resulted in staggering similarity in battlefield-related casualties.  

 

UGG Gettysburg disregards these historical similarities in favor of artificial contrivances to make the two sides different.  Then attempts to balance the fictional imbalances with superior Union artillery vs. CSA charging capabilities.  

 

History is full of examples of differences in armament that gave each side unique characteristics...but the ACW is uniquely not one of these conflicts.  

Why build a game of the ACW and not capture this fundamental truth of the war?

 

The game would be much better if a 12 pounder Napoleon was a 12 pounder Napoleon, canister was canister, and an Enfield was an Enfield.  

 

Game balance should be achieved by CSA leadership advantages, unit elan, and VP allocation rather than nerfing armament or ammunition characteristics.  

 

Note that during the war the Aberdeen Proving Ground analyzed CSA powder because Union generals and their troops concluded that in action the Rebels had a "power advantage" due to superior black powder.  The evidence from these tests demonstrated that Union and CSA powder were precisely the same.  But Union generals who did not want to admit that they were being out-generaled insisted that the CSA had a firepower advantage based on the inferiority of Northern ammunition.

 

Over the course of the war the Union claim of superior Southern powder was scientifically and irrefutably proven to be false.  Lincoln realized the only way to snuff out the myth of CSA armament superiority was by decapitating the leadership of his army until he could find generals who could and would fight based on the reality of parity in armaments and superiority of numbers on the Union side.

 

The artillery ammunition of both sides was universally crappy.  REALLY CRAPPY.  About 50% of the artillery ammunition fired actually detonated.  The Boremann fuse was the pinnacle of timed detonation devices for both sides and performed equally miserably for the Blue and Gray.

 

At Gettysburg there were about 60,000 rounds of artillery ammunition fired.  Which demonstrates conclusively that each round on average killed less than 1 man (60,000 rounds fired vs. 50,000 casualties).

 

The statistics get much worse if you consider that in addition to artillery ammunition about 5 million rounds of small arms ammunition also inflicted some of the casualties.

 

If the analysis of the military professionals at the U.S. Artillery School at Fort Sill can be trusted then about 6% of the casualties during the ACW were inflicted by artillery.  

 

If we use the baseline of 6% of the 50,000 Gettysburg casualties then somewhere in the ballpark of 3,000 casualties at Gettysburg were inflicted by artillery.  

 

The math suggests that 1 round in every 20 inflicted a single casualty at Gettysburg.  While it was mathematically possible to inflict as many as 16 casualties per round with other than canister the actual occurrence of this phenomenon was so rare that instances of such a devastating round were noted by Corps Commanders (Longstreet at Gettysburg noted a single round that inflicted 14 casualties).  If you factor in these rounds that inflicted more than a single casualty (primarily canister; but also the occasional shell) then the average round per casualty inflicted jumps to about 1 round in every 33 inflicted a single casualty at range beyond about 400 yards.

 

There is a good reason that E.P. Alexander, Gibbon and other artillery experts state that the effects of artillery were, "more moral than physical."

 

Effectively the only round that could inflict multiple casualties reliably was canister.  The metrics that Halleck, Hunt, and battery commanders such as Tidball align on is that an artillery battery of six guns firing canister at less than 400 yards roughly equaled the firepower of a 200 man regiment (roughly 1/5 the firepower of an UGG brigade).

 

There are many reasons for the poor artillery performance during the war including non-standard manufacturing of munitions and fuses, ammunition alternatives, gun calibers and design limitations, and primarily the fact that black powder is a low-explosive propellant which is too impotent to inflict massive numbers of casualties.

 

Bottom line - the ACW was primarily an infantry conflict.  

 

At the end of the battle of Gettysburg the artillery of both sides was the only combat arm still capable of continuing the contest.  The artillery arm of both armies had suffered about 10% casualties.  All of the batteries that entered the fray on July 1 were available on July 5 though some had been more severely punished than others.  When the armies moved from Gettysburg virtually all of the guns from both armies (modulo one gun with a burst barrel abandoned by the CSA on the field) were present for duty.  The fact that the artillery arms of both sides were intact was a key factor contributing to the war of attrition and parity of casualties.

 

In UGG the reality of the relationship between the combat arms in the ACW has been lost in the never-ending quest for the Ultimately Unachievable Game-balance (UUG).

 

See above the statement from Myes! that the CSA is overpowered vs. GrandGeneralRevShand's comment that the CSA is now "utter crap."

 

The only way to resolve these balance complaints is to give players the ability to edit VP values as well as the weapon characteristics and charging balance algorithms and then let players adjust to their preferences/abilities.

 

Perhaps a Pro-South, Pro-North, and a balanced option (historically most accurate) would be a wonderful addition that might attract players like myself to return to this game.  

 

I've grown weary of the game design attempts to please everyone all of the time.  You can't.  

 

But you can provide a few options that would embrace more of the community.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
This update has overpowered the CSA to the point of unplayability. I've watched Federal troops with 75% cover be demolished by Confederate Infantry that is not even within firing range. I genuinely feel guilty for using Federal infantry t this point, because no matter where I place them or what I do, any brigade that is fired upon is guaranteed to be ravaged. 

 

 

This.

 

Fucking this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[informative, well thought-out post]

 

I've been reading and enjoying your contributions to this forum for some time now and it just hit me that I never really got down to thanking you for everything I've learned from your posts. Thanks, Dave, and here's hoping you continue to bless us with your knowledge and common sense!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the aspects of the ACW that makes it unique in the annals of military history is that both sides were trained and armed almost identically.  Captured guns and ammunition could be almost immediately provisioned to units with appropriate caliber requirements.  

 

Over the course of the four-year conflict these similarities resulted in staggering similarity in battlefield-related casualties.  

 

UGG Gettysburg disregards these historical similarities in favor of artificial contrivances to make the two sides different.  Then attempts to balance the fictional imbalances with superior Union artillery vs. CSA charging capabilities.  

 

History is full of examples of differences in armament that gave each side unique characteristics...but the ACW is uniquely not one of these conflicts.  

Why build a game of the ACW and not capture this fundamental truth of the war?

 

The game would be much better if a 12 pounder Napoleon was a 12 pounder Napoleon, canister was canister, and an Enfield was an Enfield.  

 

Game balance should be achieved by CSA leadership advantages, unit elan, and VP allocation rather than nerfing armament or ammunition characteristics.  

 

Note that during the war the Aberdeen Proving Ground analyzed CSA powder because Union generals and their troops concluded that in action the Rebels had a "power advantage" due to superior black powder.  The evidence from these tests demonstrated that Union and CSA powder were precisely the same.  But Union generals who did not want to admit that they were being out-generaled insisted that the CSA had a firepower advantage based on the inferiority of Northern ammunition.

 

Over the course of the war the Union claim of superior Southern powder was scientifically and irrefutably proven to be false.  Lincoln realized the only way to snuff out the myth of CSA armament superiority was by decapitating the leadership of his army until he could find generals who could and would fight based on the reality of parity in armaments and superiority of numbers on the Union side.

 

The artillery ammunition of both sides was universally crappy.  REALLY CRAPPY.  About 50% of the artillery ammunition fired actually detonated.  The Boremann fuse was the pinnacle of timed detonation devices for both sides and performed equally miserably for the Blue and Gray.

 

At Gettysburg there were about 60,000 rounds of artillery ammunition fired.  Which demonstrates conclusively that each round on average killed less than 1 man (60,000 rounds fired vs. 50,000 casualties).

 

The statistics get much worse if you consider that in addition to artillery ammunition about 5 million rounds of small arms ammunition also inflicted some of the casualties.

 

If the analysis of the military professionals at the U.S. Artillery School at Fort Sill can be trusted then about 6% of the casualties during the ACW were inflicted by artillery.  

 

If we use the baseline of 6% of the 50,000 Gettysburg casualties then somewhere in the ballpark of 3,000 casualties at Gettysburg were inflicted by artillery.  

 

The math suggests that 1 round in every 20 inflicted a single casualty at Gettysburg.  While it was mathematically possible to inflict as many as 16 casualties per round with other than canister the actual occurrence of this phenomenon was so rare that instances of such a devastating round were noted by Corps Commanders (Longstreet at Gettysburg noted a single round that inflicted 14 casualties).  If you factor in these rounds that inflicted more than a single casualty (primarily canister; but also the occasional shell) then the average round per casualty inflicted jumps to about 1 round in every 33 inflicted a single casualty at range beyond about 400 yards.

 

There is a good reason that E.P. Alexander, Gibbon and other artillery experts state that the effects of artillery were, "more moral than physical."

 

Effectively the only round that could inflict multiple casualties reliably was canister.  The metrics that Halleck, Hunt, and battery commanders such as Tidball align on is that an artillery battery of six guns firing canister at less than 400 yards roughly equaled the firepower of a 200 man regiment (roughly 1/5 the firepower of an UGG brigade).

 

There are many reasons for the poor artillery performance during the war including non-standard manufacturing of munitions and fuses, ammunition alternatives, gun calibers and design limitations, and primarily the fact that black powder is a low-explosive propellant which is too impotent to inflict massive numbers of casualties.

 

Bottom line - the ACW was primarily an infantry conflict.  

 

At the end of the battle of Gettysburg the artillery of both sides was the only combat arm still capable of continuing the contest.  The artillery arm of both armies had suffered about 10% casualties.  All of the batteries that entered the fray on July 1 were available on July 5 though some had been more severely punished than others.  When they armies moved from Gettysburg virtually all of the guns from both armies (modulo one gun with a burst barrel abandoned by the CSA on the field) were present for duty.  The fact that the artillery arms of both sides were intact was a key factor contributing to the war of attrition and parity of casualties.

 

In UGG the reality of the relationship between the combat arms in the ACW has been lost in the never-ending quest for the Ultimately Unachievable Game-balance (UUG).

 

See above the statement from Myes! that the CSA is overpowered vs. GrandGeneralRevShand's comment that the CSA is now "utter crap."

 

The only way to resolve these balance complaints is to give players the ability to edit VP values as well as the weapon characteristics and charging balance algorithms and then let players adjust to their preferences/abilities.

 

Perhaps a Pro-South, Pro-North, and a balanced option (historically most accurate) would be a wonderful addition that might attract players like myself to return to this game.  

 

I've grown weary of the game design attempts to please everyone all of the time.  You can't.  

 

But you can provide a few options that would embrace more of the community.

An amazing post as always, and one that goes with my hearty and absolute agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hister,

 

Please see Mr. Mercanto's 28 November post above.  

He's usually an accurate tester and has offered a wealth of sound advice on multiple topics so I tend to value and trust his perspective.

 

It doesn't seem like the feedback in this thread aligns with your statement that the sides are evenly matched now.

 

I'm not certain what you mean by the statement the sides are "evenly matched."  I think it means you are happy with the game as is...which is fantastic.

 

If you mean that the game is now properly balanced so that each side in each scenario is "evenly matched" this is something completely different than the point of my post above.  

 

I'll try to be a bit more clear:

 

The relationships of the combat arms are fundamental to the ACW and therefore game design for the ACW.  

 

The point is that the Union had 100 more guns at Gettysburg.  If the artillery of both sides are now "evenly matched" then this is a flaw in the game - because the sides shouldn't be "evenly matched."  

A 12 pounder Napoleon should behave the same regardless of the color of the uniform firing the gun.  

And the Union had 100 more of 'em at Gettysburg.

 

The disparity in guns at Gettysburg was not decisive because the impact of the artillery on the battlefield during the ACW was not the decisive combat arm.  

 

When you artificially crank up the casualties artillery can inflict in the game then the relationship of the combat arms impacts the historical balance and the relationship of the combat arms that existed in the battle.  

 

Fudging artillery performance introduces game imbalance in favor of the Union...which means to achieve game balance you need to offset this artificial error by creating something else false with an offsetting imbalance...like the rebel yell or charging as the decisive weapon of the ACW.  

 

The net result is a cascade of fiction resulting in the ongoing effort for Ultimately Unachievable Game balance by manipulating these fictional variables.  Which is why Myes! on 28 November makes his comment above:

 

This update has overpowered the CSA to the point of unplayability. I've watched Federal troops with 75% cover be demolished by Confederate Infantry that is not even within firing range. I genuinely feel guilty for using Federal infantry t this point, because no matter where I place them or what I do, any brigade that is fired upon is guaranteed to be ravaged. 

 

 

Myes! - If I copy your quote the design team may ban me again so I'll not be pasting your quote into this post...but I echo your sentiments.

 

 

The game design concept is great.  I'm a huge fan.

 

 

But the implementation needs a bit more flexibility to attract a wider range of players and offer what a broader spectrum of players are seeking in an ACW game.

 

I'd like to see the combat arms in their proper historical relationships.  

 

Visually I'd love to be able to turn off the unit icons.  IMHO they clutter up the visual appeal of the game (aka destroy the game visually).  

 

Ditto the VP locations.  I understand the AI runs off of the VP locations...but visually it really sucks having them hover over the battlefield IMHO.  

It would be great to have an option so that VPs would not be displayed on the player's screen.  

That way the game code can still use the VP locations for the AI without the player(s) having to see them.

 

Personally I don't care if the designer assigns 400 points or 4,000 points to a VP location.  

 

The only metrics that interest me are the historical metrics: casualties, POW's, guns, colors, supplies captured.

The game wasn't designed to deal with the historical metrics of winning an ACW battle.

 

I'm not motivated by arbitrary contrivance of VP allocations.

I can live without the metrics ACW commanders considered important - but I don't want to be shackled to arbitrary design decisions that define "victory."

 

The tally of historically relevant metrics at the end of the battle is what matters to me and why I'm interested in the game..  

The only historically relevant metric included in the game is casualties so it's what I'm interested in using to define "victory."

 

Just imagine for a moment that Robert E. Lee writes to Jefferson Davis claiming a resounding victory at Gettysburg because he captured Oak Ridge, Cemetery Hill, and Big Round Top at a cost of 10,000 more men than he inflicted on the AoP.  Davis scratches his head and wonders where is Oak Ridge, Cemetery Hill, and Big Round Top and why the loss of 10,000 more Rebels will help defeat the Federals or win independence for the South...

 

Perhaps you can get excited about a game with this result...I can't.  

The loss of 10,000 more men by the ANV would have been catastrophic regardless of the topographical features captured during the battle.  

None of the topography in the vicinity of Gettysburg was "strategic" or could help bring an end to the war.

Gettysburg was simply about one army destroying the other completely and ending the war - at least that is what Lee claimed.

 

Imagine Abraham Lincoln getting word that Union forces had inflicted 10,000 more casualties on the ANV but; gasp, the Rebels were on Culp's Hill near Gettysburg...  

He drops his head in his hands and mutters, "My God!  We've lost Culps Hill!  Our only option now is end the war and acknowledge Southern independence."

 

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David Fair,

I don't find neither side owerpowered/underpowered as posters above. If anything this patch has brought equlibrium between the two. Granted down the line of historically uncorect differences per side as you claim. Would defenitely be interesting to observe if any changes to the game as suggested by you to favour historical realism more, would make the game more interesting to play.

I suspect game design which favours bigger differences between the two sides that were actually historically present is on it's own in this game to make each side more unique to play ie. more interesting from the casual gamer/laymen point of view.

BTW David, you must have tried AGEOD's Civil Wars II. I've just got it myself but since I'm not that familiar with the whole war am wandering what's your take on it. How many things portrayed wrong in it? Is that game a more faitful representation of the actual conflict then UGG?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hister,

 

AGEOD's Civil War is a strategic campaign game - tactics are absent from game design entirely. So the focus is different from UGG.  

 

It would be great to have an AGEOD's-like campaign game where it would be possible to use the UGG engine to fight the battles.

 

The AGEOD's design has some very strong points as well as many historical accuracy issues.  

 

AGEOD's is a game that offers the player the freedom to make strategic decisions and try different approaches to winning the war.  It retains the continuity and flow of the players decisions over the course of the game.

There is very little freedom (and sometimes less continuity) in the UGG design as the battle jumps from canned phase to canned next-phase.

 

I'm not a fan of the 'wild cards' system in the newer AGEOD's design.  

IMHO the older version of AGEOD's was much better historically than the newer game.   

 

As the ACW progressed both sides evolved from a regiment/brigade-centric mixed combat arms organization in the direction of the Corps system with the combat arms mutually supporting each other.  The net effect was that all of the combat arms were more effective as a result.  

I believe AGEOD's misses this evolution of trial by fire.  

Units gain more experience but the composition of the Divisions/Brigades remains static through the war and a real pain in the neck with lots of clicks to alter division composition.

 

Artillery for example was initially tied to mixed combat arms brigades and evolved in the direction of quasi-independent and more concentrated artillery brigades.

 

The 20 pounder Parrott rifle decreased in numbers in the field armies as the war progressed.  

These heavier guns were moved out of the field as too unwieldy and rough on horses to be effectively maintained on campaign.  

The weight of a 20 pounder Parrott shell was 35 pounds but the impact of these rounds vs. the 12 pounder Napoleon ammunition was so militarily irrelevant that these batteries were increasingly relegated to garrison duty as the war progressed.  

 

Then Grant figured out that heavy artillery batteries were all but useless and converted these formations to infantry during the final year of the war.

 

Thus at Antietam the Union had many 20 pounder Parrott batteries which made the disparity of artillery caliber at Antietam "artillery hell" for the Confederates - but the military contributions of these guns was so small that they were subsequently all but abandoned in the field by the Union.  Heavy caliber guns were brought forward for the siege of Richmond/Petersburg but were left in position during the Appomattox campaign. 

 

Sherman sent about 500 guns north out of Atlanta before the March to the Sea retaining only about 60 guns for the campaign and the remainder of the war.  

 

AEGOD's misses completely the evolution and mix of guns in the armies of the ACW.

 

The timing of evolutionary events in AGEOD's relies heavily on parity.  The Union grasped the Corps structure about a year before the CSA for example.  The CSA, and Longstreet in particular, evolved trench warfare concepts much more rapidly and employed these innovations much earlier than the Union.  Longstreet's innovations in mutually supporting trench systems was the single most enduring contribution to the art of warfare during the entire ACW conflict.  In AGEOD's both sides can form Corps and upgrade trenches at exactly the same moment in time.

 

Similarly the treatment of cavalry in AGEOD's is relatively static.  The Union was much slower to adopt cavalry brigades - yet in AGEOD's the Union has complete freedom to form cavalry brigades without the evolution and learning that was required in reality to bring parity between Union and Rebel cavalry.

 

Hopefully this summary satisfies your question - there is a great deal more that could be said...and a limited number of hours in the day.

 

C'est la guerre.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you David, your post more then surpassed my epectations!

 

I edited my original post via my phone with the sentence that I know each game covers diferent level of command (tactical vs strategic) and that due to that they can't really be compared 1 on 1 but I see it wasn't saved somehow. Anyways, your explanation delivers to those who don't know what command level are AGEOD games all about.

 

The things you mention are not game breakers for me so I'm happy it's not something even more serious. I assume gradual adaptation could be simulated but was probably ommited 'cos you would have to add a whole new layer of game design/engine coding for that alone.

 

One more question.

 

What PC game covering American Civil war gets it right the most?

Link to post
Share on other sites

God damn what's wrong with the game? Union loves to charge, backwards! Nick, truly what's the problem? Are you kidding. Ok listen artillery for Union is their asset but what good is it if Union retreats all the fu!€ing time! I mean are you kidding. I advance excelsior brigade, it doesn't fire a shot and it immediately starts blinking: huh? And then moving backwards. Dude you have too much time on your hands. Union ratings are a joke. Union had 27% more troops at Gettysburg yet your multiplayer maps often have more Rebs! I give up man. Just make both sides even so it's a game. Your tinkering this game to death my man. What's up with the alien cyborg rev legions and the Iraqi conscript Union, I mean really?

Edited by The Collectors Showcase
Link to post
Share on other sites

David, thank you for your usual super posts but... I would really appreciate if you could actually play the game and offer feedback based on your own play sessions. Have you fixed your Steam account? Sorry for asking but it would be good to know if you have tried latest patch. I know perfectly what you like and do not like and maybe, there is a chance, that latest version of the game find you much more satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The divergence of both sides is simply too great Union simply cannot attack reb formations. In some cases they can barely advance without blinking. Ewells advance round top scenarios etc, the game isn't longer a tactical excercise it's about Union slowly retreating. It's so sad. Have two players play that are from the forum and just watch the outcome. People are playing differently than what you imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

Given that you know perfectly what I like and do not like why would you need me to review the latest release? 

 

Yes I fixed my Steam account three times.  It takes multiple emails and about 4 to 10 working days to get the account reinstated.  Each time my account is fixed Steam cancels my account within 48 hours of getting the account fixed. 

I’ve grown weary of dealing with the dreadful account support from Steam and their absurd cancellation cycle.

 

You have had dozens of posts from hundreds of hours of my testing with detailed feedback and numerous suggestions on UGG. 

Not that much has changed.

You’ve stated that the game is finalized and the team has moved on to other projects. 

 

Rather than continue to invest my time in testing cycles for a game that’s been completed I’ve been learning a tremendous amount by watching the posted battles and learning the tips and techniques of other players (Koro, Nick, etc…).  This allows me to evaluate the state of the game without investing more of my time with Steam or another iteration of “more of the same UGG.”

 

Besides Nick, Mr. Mercanto and others have highlighted the same problems I documented 12 months ago. 

Hearing this again from me obviously has less impact than hearing it from your active community members playing on the current release.

 

Perhaps, when enough of your community speak up in favor of player input on the fundamentals of the algorithms, your game design may evolve to include a couple of sorely needed player-tuned input options.  This could be as simple as:

 

Infantry Modifier:

Union    -50%   -25%   Standard Setting  +25%   +50%

CSA      -50%   -25%   Standard Setting  +25%   +50%

 

Artillery Modifier:

Union    -50%   -25%   Standard Setting  +25%   +50%

CSA      -50%   -25%   Standard Setting  +25%   +50%

 

This way I can tune my games to align with the ACW history while others can tune their games for the result they favor.  

I’ve managed many software development projects over a 30 year career and know that if the design is structured to accommodate user input then the implementation effort is minimal to accommodate users.  The key is getting the design team to embrace the breadth of their customer base.

 

America’s Civil War is not a “one size fits all” proposition.

 

Alternatively, open up UGG to modding.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

For Single Player game a customization of gameplay parameters could be implemented but for multiplayer this cannot be done, as everyone must play on the same level of balance with the other.

 

Again though, if you make all this analysis based only on your statistical analysis of player feedback or older videos (as far as I know there is not yet a video with new patch), you cannot have a full concrete opinion of what currently works well or not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just played a match of Pickett's Charge as Union against a "Risky" CSA opponent.

Holy shit, what an un-enjoyable experience.

What a thoroughly un-fun, un-enjoyable, frustrating, poorly balanced experience.

The Union had zero chance at even holding back the CSA. None whatsoever. I frankly sat there, fighting the urge to punch my monitor out of sheer frustration. I never get that genuinely angry at video games. This shit just doesn't work, Nick Thomadis. It's not a fun experience. It needs to be fixed. The CSA would hold their own through every firefight out of sheer endurance, charge the Union brigades, win easily, and rout the Union brigades so hard they removed themselves from the map, entirely. If the CSA ever routed or fell back, they would do so for exactly three seconds before immediately returning to the fray.

And this was Pickett's Charge. The famous overwhelming CSA defeat.

This just needs to go away, Nick Thomadis. I really have no idea of what you were thinking with this one. And I don't even mean that as hyperbole - I genuinely wish I was a bug inside your brain that could work out just what the crap was the process of thinking that lead to this horrid insanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost Pickett's charge vs CSA Risky AI... ? Well I better not comment that but others who play the same map vs Risky or other AI, to share their own experience.

I ask you kindly to rephrase your post to be more polite because we like these forums to be friendly and not to need a "forum police".

 

PS. Try the opposite, attack, can you do the same?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Nick,

 

Why make scenarios no one would want to play? Why in the world would I want to be Union on the Ewell map? I mean tell me. why? Its a GAME right? Two folks have the chance to win? So you simply tease the sides out a bit. Grow Union on that map so that it can be played. Right now you have maybe 4 maps that are like a chess game. The others are some strange movie like historical re-creation. You've missed the point my lad. Its a game not a movie. I have so much fun losing on he Ewell map against hords of Waffen Rebs: NOT. Do this approach on the Antietam game and you better be a good short order cook my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Collector's Showcase,

 

If you want additional balanced phases to play why don't you politely offer some suggestions on ideas you have to generate a few more phases?

 

Nick and his team have been very willing to add phases as players have made suggestions.  

 

In my opinion this is not a fair criticism of Nick and his team.

 

It may even be possible to have a scenario editor where players could select parts of the battlefield and Corps-level elements from the order of battle to play against each other (not sure if you could do this at a lower-level of granularity without a bunch of new code).  

 

Then players could pick and choose their preferences for customized battles.

 
```````````````

 

Here's why the Ewell map is important in my opinion...

 

The Campaign Game offers a variety of challenges in various to players.  Some balanced, some not.  

 

The experience gained in these less-balanced phases provides players with a full-spectrum of challenges from steamrolling an enemy to doing your best against overwhelming odds.

 

This historical reality of the battle is one of the aspects that brought me to the game - inclusive of the Ewell map.

 

It doesn't seem fair to criticize a single phase out of a series of phases in a campaign game when the goal of the campaign game and its various phases is to achieve victory over the course of the multi-day battle of Gettysburg.  

 

While I agree that playing a single unbalanced phase (i.e., the Ewell map) may not be rewarding as a stand-alone phase; without these historical phases the campaign game would lose its current state of continuity and the historical challenges faced by the Union by their decision to fight at Gettysburg.  

 

The fact is the Rebs got to Gettysburg with more men earlier in the fight then lost their numerical advantage as more of the Union army arrived.  If you completely strip the historical timeline away from the game you don't really have anything left of the historical battle of Gettysburg.  

 

The game, in essence, will just be a series of blue and gray chess pieces played out on a map of the Gettysburg battlefield.  IMHO such a design vision for a historical game could only be fathomed by "a good short order cook."

 

I'd prefer take my games at breakfast with a heapin' helpin' of sloosh with half a sweet potato on the side!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...