Follow link to see some gameplay footage of the very promising Ultimate General.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_b2xJ_t-VU&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_b2xJ_t-VU&feature=youtu.be)
This game impresses me and certainly a must have when released....any word when it might be released or be available in early access/beta?
Not sure I will ask him.
Impressive video...looking forward to this.
Presentation is through the roof. The map is beautiful and the sounds are thrilling. However, gameplay wise, the action looks a little too fast paced. Doesn't seem very authentic to me. I'd also like to see some more carnage on the field.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 30, 2014, 08:58:39 PM
However, gameplay wise, the action looks a little too fast paced.
Exactly my thoughts. Looks a bit too fast-clicky RTS style. Would like to see it at a slower pace.
I too agree that the presentation looks great; like moving little figurine soldiers on a table. The sounds are excellent.
looking forward to it, could be a very good engine. Hopefully it will be tweakable for speed etc.
I like it...
Quote from: Nefaro on March 30, 2014, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 30, 2014, 08:58:39 PM
However, gameplay wise, the action looks a little too fast paced.
Exactly my thoughts. Looks a bit too fast-clicky RTS style. Would like to see it at a slower pace.
+1....I was hoping that what I was watching was at a 'very fast' setting and that there would be an ability to slow it down to 'fast', 'slow' and 'very slow'.
The kid in me likes the graphics while the old man wants a speed slider.
its ironic that one of the first thing Darth always released for the TW games was a 'troop slow down' feature
Ha yeah I was thinking that same thing.
Looks like a Civil war Sudden Strike.
i think it looks great, as with all things these days it needs slowing down
I find it weird to see all of the fire going on, and then no results. It removes the immersion a bit when so many rounds flying don't leave any bodies behind. Hell, the unit sizes didn't even seem to shrink in any noticeable way. I'd like some visual representation of mounting casualties.
Quote from: undercovergeek on March 31, 2014, 07:47:00 AM
its ironic that one of the first thing Darth always released for the TW games was a 'troop slow down' feature
LOL!
Indeed.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 31, 2014, 01:56:10 PM
I find it weird to see all of the fire going on, and then no results. It removes the immersion a bit when so many rounds flying don't leave any bodies behind. Hell, the unit sizes didn't even seem to shrink in any noticeable way. I'd like some visual representation of mounting casualties.
Yep. I would also like to see more carnage.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on March 31, 2014, 02:24:31 PM
Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 31, 2014, 01:56:10 PM
I find it weird to see all of the fire going on, and then no results. It removes the immersion a bit when so many rounds flying don't leave any bodies behind. Hell, the unit sizes didn't even seem to shrink in any noticeable way. I'd like some visual representation of mounting casualties.
Yep. I would also like to see more carnage.
you can see the troop numbers falling when the shooting starts, and then they fall some more when one of the brigades get blasted by canister shot
FWIW i didnt see any of that watching the footage sat on the toilet using my Samsung, as soon as i switched to PC it was like 'oooohhhhhhhhhhhh, look at all the units and stats, and in battle comments the HQs make'
Hot damn!
It looks like the pictures in a book about the Civil War, from about 40 years ago.
Quote from: magnus on March 31, 2014, 06:11:16 PM
Hot damn!
It looks like the pictures in a book about the Civil War, from about 40 years ago.
I think SOW does if you play it zoomed out a ways.
Looks like it plays like Total War.
Quote from: Gusington on March 31, 2014, 07:43:49 AM
The kid in me likes the graphics while the old man wants a speed slider.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Superb looking game, I hope he takes into account us auld yins ;D
Looks like we are getting very close to early access release....no brainer, day one access for me...
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/updates/226914718/1401122963
wow...and the expected price is only $10.......
from the developers post......
"Price for the Early access edition will be 10 US Dollars. Price might go higher for the release version"
I love low prices - but that sounds ridiculous
oh man - just when i thought id drawn a line under this years purchases - dammit
10£$? That's too cheap, isn't it?
i suppose itll answer the question thats usually levelled at Matrix - sell it cheaper to pull the numbers in - hope it works for them
I am not certainly going to say no to cheap prices:)
I wonder if it will be destined for a bunch of dlc add ons....
I wasn't initially going to get this but $10 you can't go wrong.
??? $10 :o :smitten:
$10? So much for the niche game high price idea..:)
you guys do realize that $10 is just for the Early Access version. They stated the release version could be higher. I'm waiting for the tablet release.
Quote from: bobarossa on May 31, 2014, 05:15:19 PM
you guys do realize that $10 is just for the Early Access version. They stated the release version could be higher. I'm waiting for the tablet release.
Yep...but I fully plan to buy the early access so full retail price does not matter to me:)
Can't imagine the full price being much more though, I would think still less than $20 which still seems like a bargain.....
Quote from: Anguille on May 31, 2014, 02:43:04 PM
10£$? That's too cheap, isn't it?
well within Mirth's price range.
if it plays like it looks though I have no problem spending $50+ on it.
Quote from: bobarossa on May 31, 2014, 05:15:19 PM
you guys do realize that $10 is just for the Early Access version. They stated the release version could be higher. I'm waiting for the tablet release.
You do realise that some early access games seem to be heading towards the "I'll charge more than release version" model? Total Annihilation and Elite Dangerous to name two that spring straight to my head
That's why we're kind of surprised.
And even then, $10 is STILL very, very low...unless that is only the early access price and doesn't give you the game when complete
I still think you guys may be jumping the gun with the celebrations. Frankly, although the map looks sleek as hell, I was pretty discouraged by the gameplay videos. I felt that combat was way too fast paced and as a result, it didn't really feel authentic at all. Additionally, the $10 price point makes me nervous. Just how much game is there? While I realize that raising concern over a bargain price is illogical from the perspective of a consumer, the fact that this game is bucking the pricing trend of the industry just has me a little skittish and makes me wonder...
Just me .02.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 01, 2014, 02:01:11 AM
I still think you guys may be jumping the gun with the celebrations. Frankly, although the map looks sleek as hell, I was pretty discouraged by the gameplay videos. I felt that combat was way too fast paced and as a result, it didn't really feel authentic at all. Additionally, the $10 price point makes me nervous. Just how much game is there? While I realize that raising concern over a bargain price is illogical from the perspective of a consumer, the fact that this game is bucking the pricing trend of the industry just has me a little skittish and makes me wonder...
Just me .02.
I do agree the price has me scratching my head and wondering how much game can be there....but....I actually have set myself with low expectations even if it is not the grandest Civil War game out there...still looks like I could have $10 worth of fun:) Just seems like it might be something unique to play around with....
Jarhead, I can't find it now but I did read in one of the discussion threads (don't recall if it was steam forum or main site) that the gameplay shown in video is sped up. Also their will be a pause button so you can easily issue orders when things get more hectic.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 01, 2014, 01:21:11 AM
You do realise that some early access games seem to be heading towards the "I'll charge more than release version" model? Total Annihilation and Elite Dangerous to name two that spring straight to my head
That's why we're kind of surprised.
And even then, $10 is STILL very, very low...unless that is only the early access price and doesn't give you the game when complete
Actually, I don't. I never use Steam (anti-online DRM stance) so I don't know how the early access works when the final release occurs. I'm hoping the tablet version works on my Nexus 10 and isn't missing key features.
Now available for Early Access on Steam
http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/
Anyone play it yet?
Isn't this game done by Darth Vader as in the Darthmods from the Total War series?
Yes
UG is now on Steam's early access, anyone tested it yet?
Quote from: bobarossa on June 01, 2014, 09:18:42 AM
Actually, I don't. I never use Steam (anti-online DRM stance) .
I once had my reservations about the Steam setup. years later and lots of formats and new pc's I have to say that Steam never screwed me in any way. it is what it is. and it works.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 11, 2014, 11:58:36 PM
Quote from: bobarossa on June 01, 2014, 09:18:42 AM
Actually, I don't. I never use Steam (anti-online DRM stance) .
I once had my reservations about the Steam setup. years later and lots of formats and new pc's I have to say that Steam never screwed me in any way. it is what it is. and it works.
+1
I bought it.
It looks as crisp as it did in the videos. Ordering units is pretty simple. It nice and quirky. I like (always did like) the idea of arrow style movement graphics. Only one battle at the moment...the one you all saw in the videos. You can play as Union or the Rebs. There are 9 (yep...NINE) levels of AI...3 levels of difficulty mixed with 3 levels of aggressiveness
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FGame%2520Screenies%2FSnap3_zps2b4898dc.jpg&hash=d4d954228508b03ef07b4b0f9ff5b2ff2448c999)
Pretty simple stuff really. There are buttons missing (facing as an example) but all shortcuts are explained in the online manual
However, a big one for me is no way to slow it down that I can see and therefore not falling into my requirements. Things are happening too fast to keep up...units falling back, morale going up and down - all quite fast. I didn't use the pause button a lot, so perhaps that would help - but hopefully a slow down will be available.
There's potential - but a slow down feature is an absolute must for me if I am to continue buying
... was told it should be posted here... my bad
I did a short video on my first experiences with Ultimate General. Its an interesting game, I wish regiments were included but other than that a lot to like. The customization of the AI is phenomenal and the UI is really really approachable, really similar to Sid Meier's Gettysburg in terms of approach-ability and polish imho.
You got your battle to last 36 minutes? :)
I think mine was going to end inside of 15! :D (But I was just fooling around)
It's a good looking engine but I would like to see it in the service of a more strategic layer.
Quote from: tgb on June 12, 2014, 06:40:56 AM
It's a good looking engine but I would like to see it in the service of a more strategic layer.
oh yes - ala Forge of Freedom! WOW! ;D :smitten:
I've been following this one in these forums. JD's comment that there is no way to slow things down is troublesome. In the trailer units move way to fast. Hopefully this is feature is added on.
^ I could be wrong...but I didn't see anything in game or a quick scan through the manual.
I'll have a proper look and get back
Hello guys. Been following the forum for a while as first choice quality information on games.
There is no "Slow" feature yet. But the Dev said on Steam forum that it's under review.
For me it's still playable by using the pause a lot. But yes, for sure, will really improve the experience if we can slow it down when we want to.
American Civil War is not my thing, but I went for it because of the positive feedback and partly to support new indie that looks to be doing the right things for players. Also it's very cheap.
That said the game experience was immersive, fun, and the challenging AI (that feels realistic) got me hooked through three slog battles.
Played on Balanced AI Confederate
Battle one:
I was winning with a cautious steady assault. Was about to take the last major VP for a win and the AI concentrated a counter attack on my left to take my major VP. = minor loss.
Battle 2. Slug fest back and fourth for a draw.
Battle 3. Steady cautious attack again on the Cemetery. Left Flanking through a town.
Taking Cemetery VPs was slug fest and closely fought as my morale and condition of guys fighting for previous battles was brittle. I made better use of Arty- even close up and some well timed close assault charges carried the Cemetry VPs.
Atry, flanking blunted a strong counter attack. But it wasn't enough. Union was going to swing to back in the overtime, but I have sheltered 3 regiments to rest and regroup who in close quarters with the Corps Commander present saw them off.
I jumped on their retreat to take last VP- for a minor win.
Overall win on Gettysburg campaign.
And definitely a win for £6 or $10
I'm mostly on fabius' side.
A slow down isn't there but hopefully will be. Pause is ok...but I'd still like to have things going at a more manageable pace. It's not breakneck speed - but it is too fast (for me at least).
The game is superbly immersive with some great sounds. Moving your units is pretty intuitive and looks cool with the arrows. I noticed a huge difference between the two levels of AI I choose...so the AI is scaled. As much as the options available? I don't know. I can't remember what settings I choose, but the first time I played the first battle, the AI was pretty aggressive and the next time I played (and although I don't remember the settings I choose, I know I choose differently) the AI was much less aggressive...more cautious. So certainly between the two options I choose, there was a difference...this could do with some more investigation.
There is more than 1 battle. After I completed my first battle (minor victory on an easy setting iirc), I was taken through a couple of screens to take me to a follow on battle.
I'm not sure you will feel much in control of anything. Basically, it's move, face and they do their thing. They'll run away if need be and regroup if/when they can. I don't know if Officers have effects on morale. There is a circle round them, but I also saw soldiers regaining morale outside of an officers influence.
I's a cool game. What's here is worth £6 most definitely. I would love to see further DLC for this in the future as I'm extremely interested in the ACW and there's a historic flavour to the game.
It's early and needs a bit of fleshing out to keep interest though...but I like the feel of it. It's of course early days to determine how much replayability there is here - but if all the versions of the AI work and give a different game, then you've got 9 replays right there.
Wasnt Darthmod about slowing gameplay down in Total War ? Seems strange that he has made a fast paced game.
Well I'd like to pick this one up, but think I'm going to wait a bit. I realize that the devs are considering a "slow down" feature, etc, but this post on the Steam forums (http://steamcommunity.com/app/306660/discussions/0/540744299920589658/#c540744299950747895) makes me think it may not happen.
Quote
Providing speed adjustments will affect the Ai. In UG:G Ai is neither scripted, nor is based in cheat bonuses. If it was it should be very easy to add such a game control feature.
In our game the Ai evaluates constantly the current situation and the player's moves trying to take the best decisions. The different speeds will unpredictably affect these decisions. For example the Cunning Ai character in one game speed will not be the same with the Cunning at another speed (perhaps he will not be cunning any more, but act as a Dynamic or Determined).
not interested at that pace. Its the problem i have with the "wargame" games, too much going on in the bigger scenarios, thats why i stick to airland and the smaller skirmishes........those are fun and manageable for me and i can check out the eye candy at ground level.
Quote from: FlickJax on June 12, 2014, 02:53:25 PM
Wasnt Darthmod about slowing gameplay down in Total War ? Seems strange that he has made a fast paced game.
I thought it looked familiar! I first saw this at TW Center a few months back IIRC. 8)
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
Well I'd like to pick this one up, but think I'm going to wait a bit. I realize that the devs are considering a "slow down" feature, etc, but this post on the Steam forums (http://steamcommunity.com/app/306660/discussions/0/540744299920589658/#c540744299950747895) makes me think it may not happen.
Quote
Providing speed adjustments will affect the Ai. In UG:G Ai is neither scripted, nor is based in cheat bonuses. If it was it should be very easy to add such a game control feature.
In our game the Ai evaluates constantly the current situation and the player's moves trying to take the best decisions. The different speeds will unpredictably affect these decisions. For example the Cunning Ai character in one game speed will not be the same with the Cunning at another speed (perhaps he will not be cunning any more, but act as a Dynamic or Determined).
I'm not AI programmer...so I have to bow to their/his experience...but it seems weird that the AI options can't do what they do....but slower. I can understand though how some levels of AI may be affected
because the game is slower and therefore the player can take their time thinking things through. Is that any different though to having a pause?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 12, 2014, 04:30:50 PM
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
Well I'd like to pick this one up, but think I'm going to wait a bit. I realize that the devs are considering a "slow down" feature, etc, but this post on the Steam forums (http://steamcommunity.com/app/306660/discussions/0/540744299920589658/#c540744299950747895) makes me think it may not happen.
Quote
Providing speed adjustments will affect the Ai. In UG:G Ai is neither scripted, nor is based in cheat bonuses. If it was it should be very easy to add such a game control feature.
In our game the Ai evaluates constantly the current situation and the player's moves trying to take the best decisions. The different speeds will unpredictably affect these decisions. For example the Cunning Ai character in one game speed will not be the same with the Cunning at another speed (perhaps he will not be cunning any more, but act as a Dynamic or Determined).
I'm not AI programmer...so I have to bow to their/his experience...but it seems weird that the AI options can't do what they do....but slower. I can understand though how some levels of AI may be affected because the game is slower and therefore the player can take their time thinking things through. Is that any different though to having a pause?
That's what I was thinking as well. It might give you an advantage but how in the world can it change the AI?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 12, 2014, 04:30:50 PM
Quote from: steve58 on June 12, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
Well I'd like to pick this one up, but think I'm going to wait a bit. I realize that the devs are considering a "slow down" feature, etc, but this post on the Steam forums (http://steamcommunity.com/app/306660/discussions/0/540744299920589658/#c540744299950747895) makes me think it may not happen.
Quote
Providing speed adjustments will affect the Ai. In UG:G Ai is neither scripted, nor is based in cheat bonuses. If it was it should be very easy to add such a game control feature.
In our game the Ai evaluates constantly the current situation and the player's moves trying to take the best decisions. The different speeds will unpredictably affect these decisions. For example the Cunning Ai character in one game speed will not be the same with the Cunning at another speed (perhaps he will not be cunning any more, but act as a Dynamic or Determined).
I'm not AI programmer...so I have to bow to their/his experience...but it seems weird that the AI options can't do what they do....but slower. I can understand though how some levels of AI may be affected because the game is slower and therefore the player can take their time thinking things through. Is that any different though to having a pause?
I can't see it having any difference from the pause feature.
The encouraging things are that
1. We can give orders during pause.
2. The units don't evaporate, or route super quick so it feels manageable with pauses.
3. The devs said they'll review it constantly.
4. The devs forum and presence elsewhere does look like they genuinely will weigh up customer feedback. eg, they've posted several polls on implementation decisions.
I'll buy it quickly when they slow it down.
There is a HUGE difference between a pause feature and a slow down feature.
A slow down feature allows you battlefield awareness whilst keeping the continuity of the game...and therefore the very feel of the game.
A pause feature whilst giving you battlefield awareness breaks the feel - as you are required to pause often to check units at different ends of the battlefield.
That is, of course, only my opinion.
(and I've used "feel of the game" and "continuity" in place of other words and phrases which, at the moment, escape my memory...but I know what I mean) ;)
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical after all these years, but I've found that a too-quick game speed is often a mask for a weak AI. If things happen fast enough, you either don't notice weak AI moves or can't make moves of your own that tax the AI.
Slow it down to human speed, let us give orders on the fly and let's see how the AI does. I'm skeptical until then.
There is probably some truth in that...though I'm pretty sure that isn't the case in a lot of games.
But...why not allow a slow mode? (not speaking about this game specifically...just in general)? That does give some weight to your argument.
Quote from: Queeg on June 12, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical after all these years, but I've found that a too-quick game speed is often a mask for a weak AI. If things happen fast enough, you either don't notice weak AI moves or can't make moves of your own that tax the AI.
Slow it down to human speed, let us give orders on the fly and let's see how the AI does. I'm skeptical until then.
Don't say 'skeptical' or that platypus character will show up in here. :))
Of course I am out of town on business when this gets released:(
Been waiting for this forever....
Quote from: bbmike on June 12, 2014, 04:56:14 PM
Quote from: Queeg on June 12, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical after all these years, but I've found that a too-quick game speed is often a mask for a weak AI. If things happen fast enough, you either don't notice weak AI moves or can't make moves of your own that tax the AI.
Slow it down to human speed, let us give orders on the fly and let's see how the AI does. I'm skeptical until then.
Don't say 'skeptical' or that platypus character will show up in here. :))
Nobody expects the Platypus Skeptics!
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 12, 2014, 04:48:06 PM
There is a HUGE difference between a pause feature and a slow down feature.
A slow down feature allows you battlefield awareness whilst keeping the continuity of the game...and therefore the very feel of the game.
A pause feature whilst giving you battlefield awareness breaks the feel - as you are required to pause often to check units at different ends of the battlefield.
That is, of course, only my opinion.
(and I've used "feel of the game" and "continuity" in place of other words and phrases which, at the moment, escape my memory...but I know what I mean) ;)
Agreed there is that difference! The cant see a difference was relating to how it would affect the AI.
So far I absolutely like it. The map is beautiful and I really like the arrow movement system. It really lets you see the contour in the land and terrain is so important in this kind of warfare. Having cover and high ground makes a tremendous difference. I also like the way information is displayed in the UI and I absolutely love watching the numbers of men drop in the brigade display as volleys are fired.
Yes, its a relatively fast-paced game, especially for one involving the Civil War. So, UG won't win any awards for extreme historical authenticity, but it will most likely win awards for fun factor. Its got it in spades. I look forward to experiencing improvements throughout the development process.
Remember that this also a tablet game and the devs are trying to capture a wide audience. Tablet games are usually "consumed" in short sessions. So the speed may be troublesome for Grogs but not for most of the consumers.
Okay, I haven't bought an early access game in a while, but I sprung for this one! No time to consider it tonight, but maybe this weekend (whilst planning how to take the reins as Russia in WW1 Darkest Hour.)
I get the impression that Morgan Freeman should be doing any and all narration.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 12, 2014, 11:30:49 PM
I get the impression that Morgan Freeman should be doing any and all narration.
How absolutely cool that would be! Black God narrating the briefings! :D
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
if Relic could get Yes to do the Homeworld sound track this should be a no brainer.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 13, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
Are you being serious? Or is this a "wishlist"?
Another cool feature of this game is when you exit and go back in, you can press the CONTINUE button and you start where you left off.
By the way - I can't seem to issue orders when paused and I thought someone said you could. Can others?
A couple of other things needed - edge of map scrolling and scroll speed
This weekend I'm going to mess about with the AI options - see what the differences are. (I mean hopefully I will, because I'm out watching X-Men again and on Sunday I have Scotland in Colchester)
Morgan Freeman can narrate anything:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F531%2F805%2F455.jpg&hash=8d8fd39e2d7f378c63c70018ae9d39ea2eed266c)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 13, 2014, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 13, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
By the way - I can't seem to issue orders when paused and I thought someone said you could. Can others?
A couple of other things needed - edge of map scrolling and scroll speed
This weekend I'm going to mess about with the AI options - see what the differences are. (I mean hopefully I will, because I'm out watching X-Men again and on Sunday I have Scotland in Colchester)
Yes- I pause and order a lot with the <P> key. I'd prefer spacebar pause though.
So far I've had a blast on balance AI settings. The main thing I've noticed with this is that the Union have mounted serious counterattacks. Sometimes stealing a major VP to swing victory condition close to the end. So I'm making the conscious decision to keep a reserve.
I paused the game by clicking the play/pause button, but I couldn't issue orders. So I wonder if P acts differently?? ???
Jd, haven't had a chance to play but saw your comment about it needing map edge scrolling...that doesn't exist? What method is currently used? Keys?
I haven't checked what other methods are there...but right clicking and dragging is the option I found...
I wonder if map edge scrolling doesn't work because I have window mode set? I'll have to have a look
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 13, 2014, 04:57:24 AM
I paused the game by clicking the play/pause button, but I couldn't issue orders. So I wonder if P acts differently?? ???
I wonder too. I think that I used that pause button too- but worth trying P. At the current pace I couldn't play without pauses
WASD keys also move the map. Hmmm, I may try non windowed mode too.
Edit: the short online guide is worth a once over:
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/746-online-short-guide/
How does this compare to Scourge of War? More or less complex, easier to get into?
I've started the tutorials on SoW, but I find myself getting turned around or losing track of units, or having them march off in the wrong direction, because I had the general selected and he took all his regiments with him.
Thanks.
Quote from: RedArgo on June 13, 2014, 09:58:03 AM
How does this compare to Scourge of War? More or less complex, easier to get into?
I've started the tutorials on SoW, but I find myself getting turned around or losing track of units, or having them march off in the wrong direction, because I had the general selected and he took all his regiments with him.
Thanks.
LOL. Just about the only thing that is similar in these two games is that they both cover the Civil War. UG is nowhere near as complex as SoW. Very easy to dive right in.
Playing against the "balanced" AI, I managed to win the Battle of Gettysburg as the Confederates with 33,000 victory points and at a loss of 15,697 men, Much better than my historical counterparts. The Union, meanwhile, lost with 20,000 victory points and 20,641 losses. The game does not identify losses as KIA or WIA.
The more I play this, the more I love it.
BUT - I have some slight reservations. I'm in love with the style and the immersion and the flow....but...what control do I have? It's early - so the question is rhetorical...I just don't know at the moment. I can move troops forward. I can make them fall back. I can set their facing. I can make them halt and hold and run and walk. But can I affect much more than that? Do I have to?
They'll flee on their own and, seemingly rally on their own. I'm still struggling to see what part commanders do. I don't know if they slow morale loss or whether they rally troops quicker...it's a hard thing to gauge with the speed and depth of the battle.
I think the answer to the first question is yes...by moving my commanders about...I hope...though I can't say I've noticed moving a commander into a low morale, fleeing unit's range makes them rally quicker.
The answer to the second question is...at the moment no. The game is a blast. But - if there's no randomness. If the replayability is low, then the answer would seem to be yes.
But...having said that, it's a superb little game. It drags you right in. :)
I've been playing it this afternoon, but don't leave it on pause too long. I paused to go and make a cup of tea, then watch the news. When I got back to the game the system had completely locked up, and I had to reboot. Bummer >:(. I was winning well on Day 1! :(
Finally got home to play and played the first phase/battle....interesting.....not sure what to think yet, too early.
- Looks nice, like the graphics and detail
- Love the movement system and how you can draw it versus waypoints...really like that
- Its the American civil war....enough said!
Note sure about
- Game speed...not as bad as I thought it would be, but still hard for me to control everything
- Would like to have map scrolling by hitting the edges
- Unless I am missing something, can't really direct artillery at specific targets and really can't for infantry either, besides having them face differently
- Can't really tell terrain and what bonus you might get, unless I missed that too
Overall, I am sure I will like it and can't complain for $10.....you can certainly tell made for mobile and other platforms because of its simplicity......but maybe that is the type of game I need versus all the over complex games....
And did I say it is the American civil war...my favorite war/period so that alone worth it:)
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on June 13, 2014, 07:28:45 PM
Finally got home to play and played the first phase/battle....interesting.....not sure what to think yet, too early.
- Looks nice, like the graphics and detail
- Love the movement system and how you can draw it versus waypoints...really like that
- Its the American civil war....enough said!
Note sure about
- Game speed...not as bad as I thought it would be, but still hard for me to control everything
- Would like to have map scrolling by hitting the edges
- Unless I am missing something, can't really direct artillery at specific targets and really can't for infantry either, besides having them face differently
- Can't really tell terrain and what bonus you might get, unless I missed that too
Overall, I am sure I will like it and can't complain for $10.....you can certainly tell made for mobile and other platforms because of its simplicity......but maybe that is the type of game I need versus all the over complex games....
And did I say it is the American civil war...my favorite war/period so that alone worth it:)
To target chosen units select your unit then left click on the target unit. The units not in shadow are those in LOS
Terrain plays a big part in winning fire-fights. Top box giving cover %
Moving across difficult terrain drains condition that also contributes to brittleness.
Well I just lost my first campaign. :uglystupid2:
Tried a battle and have to say wow! I'm not a graphics person but the graphics are beautiful. The game feels like Sid's Gettysburg a little bit (which is good). I don't mind the speed because you can pause the game and give orders if you click the time bar at the top of the screen. I think this game has a lot of potential!
Quote from: bbmike on June 14, 2014, 07:06:46 AM
Tried a battle and have to say wow! I'm not a graphics person but the graphics are beautiful. The game feels like Sid's Gettysburg a little bit (which is good). I don't mind the speed because you can pause the game and give orders if you click the time bar at the top of the screen. I think this game has a lot of potential!
'P' also pauses the game, and unpauses it. Which I found very handy.
Pewpewpew did a video (see post above) (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9734.msg264378#msg264378) and mentioned some issues with charging and melee not doing as much damage as one would expect.
But overall, I really like the fluidity of being able to command everything visually real easy. You need the pause if you want total control, as real time there isn't enough time to move across the map and made decisions and action them.
Dev has posted saying that so many people post about the speed they have to look at it. "...But as noted there are too many requests on the issue to ignore them..."
Many get used to the speed. I still want it slower so I can take the details in and make more considered decisions.
I thought Pewpewpew's comments while not all wrong, they came across as unbalanced or overly negative.
I think is problem with Cav not taking on Arty may be a tactical one as I've had some good results with careful use of Cav as the Union.
Cavs overrun my artillery from time to time but there's a video up answering a few questions that have been out there since launch.
Like the original Scourge of War.....battle scenarios are locked in this game until you play through them. I hated this in SoW, but it was finally corrected in a mod, or was it a patch, I don't remember. Hopefully, they do the same with this game.
Played my first battle last night, held Herr's Ridge as the Confederates, but the mission ended up a draw somehow. I guess because the Union kept Oak Ridge, but I know I had 3500 points after marching a brigade around to take that wooded hill to the north. (I also took Oak Hill briefly with that same brigade, but with Union reinforcements on the way I eventually retreated to hold my little hill, and then brought them back to save my arty from a Union push late game.)
I played against the Union Dynamic AI setting, i.e. the advanced setting between cautious and aggressive, which I suspect is supposed to be the "best" AI. (All the planning cycles and no weaknesses, able to be both cautious and aggressive.) The Union shelled some skirmishers early (somehow causing significant casualties to my own artillery... but not to those skirmishers? Was that a bug or am I misremembering the first minutes??) and then kept arty out of the game until the end. I moved my arty up to Herr's ridge and spent most of the day rifling his skirms from long distance while my infantry and skirm brigades held in place. Union never moved, just sat there and took it, probably letting me waste strength against the skirms (who after all were spread out and so less vulnerable to arty. I did move one unit closer with cover from two nearby brigade to cannister an actual infantry brigade parked nearby, but I'm unsure how much effect that actually had.) I stayed in the woods or up on the ridge as much as possible.
Once my reinforcement brigades arrived I probed off to my left (thus taking that little hill to the north, briefly coming south to take Oak Hill etc. as mentioned above) and to my right/south. My southern plan was to flank the brigade I was cannistering and try to drive it off, mainly to see if I could. I can't tell if this aggro'd the AI or if it thought it had brought up enough troops, but soon I was doing all kinds of maneuvers against infantry, skirms and the occasional cav sortie. The AI doesn't seem to understand yet not to charge a hill of most of the artillery with one cav brigade. :uglystupid2: Otherwise I guess it did okay. The battle was "extended" (not sure what that means other than the timer slowly went from green to red), and I was barely able to repulse a major thrust on my center left to take Herr Ridge while it took me the whole extended time to push finally across the river (running down map center) on my right to take a firm anchor at some farms. Considering how badly I was outnumbered from start to finish (and how I'm not familiar with the game engine yet) I think I did okay, too. :)
Like some other people have said, the one or two charges I attempted appeared to mean nothing. But at least they weren't outright suicides like WHAT ALWAYS HAPPENED IN FORGE OF FREEDOM! :buck2: Seriously I have never tried a charge in that game under the best circumstances imaginable that didn't end in disaster for me. (Or vice versa to be fair, but the AI never seemed to charge in that game.) I could be charging a depleted brigade with a perfectly healthy one, from the rear, with cavalry, while the other one was disorganized and routing off the field AND I WOULD STILL LOSE 30 PERCENT WITH NO APPRECIABLE LOSSES FOR THE OTHER SIDE!
Compared to that, I'm happy with the charges so far in this game. :)) I suspect, and hope, that if I charged a little more correctly it would work better.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 13, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
Heh.
That's not likely since James Earl Jones is dead. :( For one.
Quote from: Nefaro on June 15, 2014, 03:08:10 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 13, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
Heh.
That's not likely since James Earl Jones is dead. :( For one.
James Earl Jones is NOT dead. You must be thinking of someone else.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 15, 2014, 03:08:10 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 13, 2014, 12:16:54 AM
ah but here's the topper. Freeman does the overall and Union voice overs but James Earl Jones does the Confederacy voice overs.
Heh.
That's not likely since James Earl Jones is dead. :( For one.
James Earl Jones is NOT dead. You must be thinking of someone else.
darth vader?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
James Earl Jones is NOT dead. You must be thinking of someone else.
Darth Vader. He's probably thinking of Darth Vader. Or Thulsa Doom.
^ Ninja'd!
got to be quicker than that!
or maybe Mufasa the Lion King?
Yeah, that one's kinda dead. I think the baboon with the ball-sack charm hanging from his walking stick can commune with him though.
JEJ just did a cameo vocal as God (aka The Big P.I. In the Sky) for the (possibly) final Tex Murphy game. So he could be available.
Whether he'd want to do vocals for the Confederacy is another matter. ::)
Tommy Lee Jones would be a better pick.
Meanwhile on the second mission of whatever Confederacy plot-trail I've unlocked: the Union retreated south toward the town itself and specifically to the Seminary and the Cemetery. My goals were to knock them out of there, except I never found the cemetery (I think?? -- there was a VP area on the ridge south of the Seminary, was that it?) and the Seminary was worth NO VICTORY POINTS so seriously what the hell?! I know I took most of the VPs available on the map, also driving them out of Gettysburg itself -- I even snuck a division around the map edge and snagged a hill to the southeast worth 4000 points. (Which I then was able to reinforce at the last minute with three or four divisions coming onto the map from north-northeast.) We didn't have an extended fight this time.
Still a draw. Casualties were about even, around 2500 each.
One thing the game designer needs to get straight with himself is reinforcements. The mission briefing text says A, the troop list with expected reinforcements says B, and what actually happens is C. Two of those need to synch with one another even if they're wrong. ???
Still I was very proud of a lone division (Breckinridge? Can't recall this morning...) which I marched southwest to scout out what would be the final VP area (worth only 1500 points, not a cemetery.) The Union men got there first and I never did get enough force pushed down there to distantly threaten them, but B's division parked in the woods nearby and DAMNED WELL STOOD THERE for a few hours against repeated assaults from the Iron Brigade and other divisions. It was glorious. They were a short division, too, to start with, only about 1200 men. Morale and conditioning stayed high. I eventually managed to work down another division, twice as large, for support, and they didn't quite do as well -- they really were support for B's division! Things might have gone badly down there at last if the fight hadn't ended, since the Yanks were being all pushed to the south center of the map resulting in a higher number of divisions at hand to keep rotating in and out against that woody ridge. (The far south end of MacPhearson's Ridge if I recall correctly.)
Next up, durned if I know. :P
Played the first battle over the weekend. Achieved a major victory as the Confederates (on Balanced difficulty) without really knowing what I was doing.
My impressions were better than I expected.
On the good side, it's easy to jump in and play. And it's a lot of fun. I like the graphics and sounds. It really has the feel of those battle maps that were a staple of Civil War picture books - the ones with dozens of little soldiers.
My only big complaint is just that everything happens too fast. And I don't mean unit speed, really. It's more that units tend to break or charge or just pivot for no particular reason after just a volley or two. It's march, fire, reposition, fire, charge/break. I'm not sure "speed" is the problem so much as unit morale and cohesion - units just need to be more "sticky." I'd be happy if they would just make the units have a bit more stand-and-fight to them. [EDIT: On reflection, I did see units stand and slug it out for considerable periods if they were in wooded or other protected locations. So perhaps there are terrain or other variables at play that aren't immediately apparent. Overall, though, the pace is quicker than it ought to be due to how quickly units typically break, charge or reposition.]
I'd also like to see more post-battle stats - who had what losses and inflicted what casualties; who fought well and who didn't; unit morale, cohesion, etc. As it stands now, you just get a splash screen saying you won or lost and showing comparative casualties - then you're dumped right into the next battle. I didn't start the next battle, so I can't tell if losses carry forward - but it would be hard to tell in any event since individual unit stats are lacking.
I'm pleasantly surprised overall.
Just folded and bought, just need the time to play now!!!
Refought the first battle on the same settings and ended up with a minor defeat. I actually killed more of the bad guys than I did the first time, but lost on objectives.
More observations:
I had more stand-up fights this time around, though I'm not sure why. My lines were better formed this time and my leader was nearby. Perhaps there's a bonus for having mutually supporting lines?
My biggest complaint remains that I don't feel like I really have much control over my units. The movement system is outstanding - it's very easy to position your units - but there's very little control beyond that. I'd like more options for positioning - oblique, etc.
Finally, I've noticed in both games that the AI will often send single unsupported units on forays deep into the rear, usually aimed at a victory objective. While that does add some challenge, especially when you have fewer units and can't spare any to chase the rogue unit - it's very unrealistic. No Civil War commander would march an unsupported unit deep behind the enemy lines. That sort of thing just didn't happen like the game depicts.
Having fun overall.
Well Grant`s Vicksburg campaign was deep inside enemy territory.... How about Sherman`s march to the sea? There were many cavalry raids deep inside enemy territory.. Grierson`s raid comes to mind pretty quickly.......Are we thinking about the same Civil War?
I think he is referring to individual brigades not armies. Cavalry is a whole different matter due to their speed and training. They are intended to operate independently as scouts.
Not to mention the difference between tactical and operational/strategic.
Have there been any improvements so far in how charges are being handled? I'm interested in this and it certainly is pretty, but I'm hoping for something a little more robust than where it seems to be so far. Not that I'm expecting it to be Scourge of War...
no change yet, incoming patch according to the game forum. Hope they adjust the moral system some, its all over the place, too quick to drop. That bugs me more than the game speed at the moment, a supported unit on the high ground with a leader close and artillery should be a little harder to dislodge when the numbers are close to even, other wise the high ground don't mean much, did i mention it was 80%+ cover also. Having played for a couple hours, yes the speed needs to be adjusted but not as much as i first thought looking at it. It's in pretty good shape for an early access, its quick playing and i'm having fun with it, whether that lasts on the replayability front don't know yet. My favorite moment was switching to canister and blasting some rebs charging my line...... that did some damage.
Quote from: Trooperc7 on June 17, 2014, 02:19:31 PM
Well Grant`s Vicksburg campaign was deep inside enemy territory.... How about Sherman`s march to the sea? There were many cavalry raids deep inside enemy territory.. Grierson`s raid comes to mind pretty quickly.......Are we thinking about the same Civil War?
I know the one I'm thinking about.
Read up on General Sickles at Gettysburg. That's what I'm talking about.
Sickles didn't go behind enemy lines either. Just in front of the Union line by about a mile.
Right. And got his III Corps largely destroyed.
In the game, brigades (or skirmishers) too often do lone-wolf marches to the extreme rear of the enemy. That sort of thing just didn't happen in the way the game depicts.
Yeah, I had a group of skirmishers on the end of my line and the rebels pushed the middle of my line back, leaving the skirmishers behind the enemy line, so I was able to send them further back to engage the confederate artillery with no enemy infantry around. I guess that could happen.
My brother and I were at Gettysburg some years ago and from Cemetery Ridge, Sickles position at the Peach Orchard does look like good ground but seems a lot less so when you get there. Especially when there are no other blue uniforms close by.
Good fun and not a click fest which is cool.
patch coming today or tomorrow. link to patch notes and there's a video explanation of new stuff.
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/998-announcement-ultimate-general-patch-v08-coming-soon/
looks like some good stuff and it looks like patches will be weekly
I guess part of what bugs me is that it's obvious the AI is programmed to send lone whack-a-mole units to seize victory objectives in the rear of the main battle line. That just didn't happen in real life, where there was no timer to save the poor bastards standing by themselves, unsupported, a mile behind enemy lines. Yes, it does provide some challenge. But it's far too gamey for my taste.
EDIT: Maybe what I've been seeing is a bug. From the patch notes: "Units now should retreat to much better directions. Before there was case that they could retreat in undesirable directions behind enemy lines."
Nice. Groups and formations. Badly needed.
I agree, Queeg. I've seen lone enemy brigades break ranks and head for a victory location well behind my lines and the heat of the action. This was done towards the end of the battle when the AI had already been fairly whipped and time was running out. I saw this as extremely gamey. Hopefully, it does fall into the bug category as opposed to an AI programming issue.
Looks like patch is out....
Your feedback has been enormously helpful to narrow down the most important bugs and inconsistencies to include them in our first weekly patch. The patch is now available and offers the following:
Ultimate General: Gettysburg Patch 0.8 rev4469
---------------------
NEW FEATURES
Added unit grouping functionality
Use ctrl and drag area to select units then move them. Hold shortcut transferred to H key button.
You can also double click your General to select and move his units that are included in his command area.
You can assign groups by selecting units and clicking the "Group" button. In this build it is possible to make group for a single unit. This can help to make shortcuts for some of your important units or your generals (Please advise if you like this feature).
Clicking on a group and pressing Ctrl-Right click allows you to automatically arrange/rotate a simple formation for your unit group.
When you use formation you can see the future position of unit, with rectangle and facing indication. The unit facing indication is also available in the rotation gesture.
Added possibility to reassign various command buttons in settings.
GAMEPLAY IMPROVEMENTS
· AI fixes and various improvements make AI to keep better distance from player, make better lines and be a better opponent in all characters. Additional fixes will follow next week with your feedback.
· Various changes made in battle balance and morale that affect the combat pace to be more realistic and slower as you requested. You will be able to keep your lines for longer, with no micromanagement and AI will desire to be more cohesive, use artillery more frequently to pound you from distance and then assault.
· Terrain modifiers for speed are balanced better. Previously the unit movement penalties -for example when walking through forest- were very slight according to user feedback
· Columns now have a slight speed bonus. Helps AI to maneuver faster and reinforcements to come in time.
· Various changes in battle scenes of the 1st day.
· Balanced battle duration to be a little less as needed (could increase the probability of unnecessary player waiting time or overwhelmed units to be cornered in the map and game not to stop).
· Slocum and Stannard reinforcements now can arrive sooner which adds the necessary punch and "drama" for the Union army.
· Some fixes in the battle flow and in cases where decision buttons would lead in wrong battle of 2nd day.
· Friendly fire hold threshold balanced as part of better AI targeting, unit lines fixes, less frequent unnecessary rotation of your units, artillery management.
· US vs CS combat balance improvement. The Confederates were slightly overpowered before, according to feedback.
· Melee damage increased, especially against artillery.
PERFORMANCE
· Performance and FPS improvement that is noticeable in big battles.
CONTROLS
· The LoS of your selected unit (the area it can see) now endures more and is more evident as many users asked.
BUG FIXES
· Fixed issue when game crashes in moment of any battle start. We added button to disable unit transparency for additional safety measure for those who still anticipate this problem until we fully fix the potential issue.
· Units can no longer get stuck in borders.
· Units now should retreat to much better directions. Before there was case that they could retreat in undesirable directions behind enemy lines.
· Case of reinforcements freezing after loading game should now be fixed.
· Uncontrollable units -that for example retreat- can no longer be selected.
· Units freezing in retreat mode bug should be fixed. Please report if you anticipate this issue again.
· Units becoming invisible bug is addressed. Please report if this happens again.
· Bug reporter button fixes and improvements. Now it does better quality screenshots. Problem with missing logs is also fixed. Bug reporter doesn't affect performance anymore.
· Corrections in some main menu and battle description texts.
I like the new patch overall. Combined unit commands work well.
Unfortunately, the AI still does rear-area VP charges. Part of the issue is that I'm playing as the Confederates and have only one unit of skirmishers. The North has several, plus small cavalry units, that it can send on deep end-runs. Since I can't divide my units, it's literally impossible to do anything about the many 200-300 man units the AI can send to my rear. In my last battle, the North had two units of cavalry, two of skirmishers, and finally the Iron Brigade (which had been mauled into retreating twice before) all wandering around probably the equivalent of a mile behind the main battle line.
Another part of the problem is that units don't really break. They retreat and then reform nearly instantaneously. It's these units that late in the battle seem programmed to look for a VP deep and the rear and make a bee-line to it.
The rest of the game is so very good otherwise, that I'd hate to see battles devolve to rear-area whack-a-mole affairs. That aspect is seriously unfun.
Haven't played with the new patch yet. Wonder if it breaks saves, though... (not that I'd care, I'm only two missions into the Rebel campaign.)
I don't think we're going to see anything done about the VP hunting. The VPs are largely the game -- the game isn't set up to 'score' primarily based on casualties (I think? -- my casualties have been pretty even come to think of it, while my VP count was superior so far in my two draws...!), and C&C / supply factors just don't exist. So the computer has no reason NOT to send scooters to snag VPs.
On the other hand, I think of VPs representing important HQ or supply or signal areas, so if I don't protect those while I'm advancing I'm playing poorly anyway -- or I'm playing gamey myself by ignoring factors which would be important in real life! I shouldn't just be chugging along leaving my rear unguarded.
Maybe the solution is for the mission designers to make sure each side has sufficient short divisions and/or skirms to make a choice between serious defense of captured VPs or committing those units to other areas of attack or defense and risking a skirmish raid to capture VPs (where that result would equal disruption of interior lines etc.)
As a related option, maybe players (and the AI?) can be given a menu choice when capturing (and starting with) a VP, about what the VP should mean and therefore what bonuses to the battle can be gained and lost (possibly with active penalties for losing it). Or maybe those bonuses/penalties can be hardcoded to the mission based on how Feds and Confeds did or would have likely used the VP areas. Then it isn't just a score (though for relative campaign progression that would still apply), and protecting or risking the VP during the mission would feel less gamey.
Note that Queeg and I have just posted our comments (with slight modifications) on the Steam forum for the game, too.
I think I managed to successfully link back to this thread for anyone visiting that thread. O:-)
here's a link to the same topic on the official forums, they echo queeg's thoughts.
http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/980-skirmishers-going-on-deep-raids-bug/
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 18, 2014, 02:23:09 PM
Nice. Groups and formations. Badly needed.
I agree, Queeg. I've seen lone enemy brigades break ranks and head for a victory location well behind my lines and the heat of the action. This was done towards the end of the battle when the AI had already been fairly whipped and time was running out. I saw this as extremely gamey. Hopefully, it does fall into the bug category as opposed to an AI programming issue.
Yeah. Humans will do the same thing when nearing end game. So the AI is smart. It is a matter of game design.
I found the Civil War Generals objective system good. The more you fight for a certain location, the move valuable it becomes in terms of VP. Scourge of War is also good as casualties are given more weight to objective locstions.
A few things I often find myself wanting to do
- shift my units left or right
- stack commands - so move then face...currently you have to move then wait until that's finished then set facing (setting facing before the move is complete stops the movement)
- not sure if charge works for my Union troops - I see lots of charges by the rebs, but not the Union troops...even when ordered
- My Union yella bellies seem to break alot even when a commander is about and they have numerical superiority
- on the easiest AI setting (bottom left) I've found alot of enemy troops simply stand there - possibly after routing, I don't know...but they just stand in line - and more annoyingly, so do mine - both sides just standing there
By the way - to concur with jomni - historical or not, I am constantly trying to probe on the fringes to get to the enemy rear...though not necessarily to take a victory point. But the AI in my game this morning did head for Oak Ridge and took it...then it continued to flow between sides based on who was routing.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 19, 2014, 05:50:39 AM
A few things I often find myself wanting to do
- shift my units left or right
- stack commands - so move then face...currently you have to move then wait until that's finished then set facing (setting facing before the move is complete stops the movement)
- not sure if charge works for my Union troops - I see lots of charges by the rebs, but not the Union troops...even when ordered
- My Union yella bellies seem to break alot even when a commander is about and they have numerical superiority
- on the easiest AI setting (bottom left) I've found alot of enemy troops simply stand there - possibly after routing, I don't know...but they just stand in line - and more annoyingly, so do mine - both sides just standing there
By the way - to concur with jomni - historical or not, I am constantly trying to probe on the fringes to get to the enemy rear...though not necessarily to take a victory point. But the AI in my game this morning did head for Oak Ridge and took it...then it continued to flow between sides based on who was routing.
you played with the new patch? seems like my union lines dont break as easy and the individual combats seem to last a bit longer. I think the reb AI does stand around recovering so they can charge again, happens to me alot now since the lines dont break as easy[shouldn't they recover out of artillery range]. I defiantly want a shift order for my lines, thats a good idea. I always am probing with small units out on the flank and forward, i think they just need to make it so a certain size unit can capture VP's. All in all i think this patch is a step in the right direction.
Had a little time with the new patch last night and it looks like they fixed the issue where map edge scrolling didn't exist in the release version, at least for me it didn't work.....that was a biggie for me:)
Yep they added scrolling.
And they really seem to be listening, wanting feedback and acting on it.
Quote from: jomni on June 19, 2014, 03:18:54 AM
Yeah. Humans will do the same thing when nearing end game. So the AI is smart. It is a matter of game design.
Humans who play historically won't. No need to program the AI to play like a gamey human. Better to program the AI properly and leave it to the humans to control themselves.
In any event, they've said they plan to fix this.
Quote from: Queeg on June 21, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: jomni on June 19, 2014, 03:18:54 AM
Yeah. Humans will do the same thing when nearing end game. So the AI is smart. It is a matter of game design.
Humans who play historically won't. No need to program the AI to play like a gamey human. Better to program the AI properly and leave it to the humans to control themselves.
In any event, they've said they plan to fix this.
I had a BIG reply to your concerns - and lost it like an idiot!
So here it is in a nutshell.
When I play a game, I want to play the game. I don't necessarily want to be confined to what happened. Otherwise, as the rebs, I'd never win - and I can do without the AI beating me (or me losing) just because "that's how it was".
I can understand why it irks people who have an in depth understanding of the war.
And I actually don't agree it's "gamey" either. I often break a unit away and check round a flank or try and come in from the rear and even try and get a victory location. If for no other reason than the enemy has to drag units away from the front to deal with the incursion.
Either way - I have no interest in playing a game that is coded in such a way that you cannot change the outcome. Why bother playing if I already know the result.
I don't have your knowledge of the Civil War - so I have to bow to that - but I don't agree a "game" should be exactly as it was. I have my own ideas on how a game (certain games, not even all) should stay within the realms of reality.
I probably didn't really put any of that coherently - but oh well.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 21, 2014, 01:59:25 PM
Quote from: Queeg on June 21, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: jomni on June 19, 2014, 03:18:54 AM
Yeah. Humans will do the same thing when nearing end game. So the AI is smart. It is a matter of game design.
Humans who play historically won't. No need to program the AI to play like a gamey human. Better to program the AI properly and leave it to the humans to control themselves.
In any event, they've said they plan to fix this.
I had a BIG reply to your concerns - and lost it like an idiot!
So here it is in a nutshell.
When I play a game, I want to play the game. I don't necessarily want to be confined to what happened. Otherwise, as the rebs, I'd never win - and I can do without the AI beating me (or me losing) just because "that's how it was".
I can understand why it irks people who have an in depth understanding of the war.
And I actually don't agree it's "gamey" either. I often break a unit away and check round a flank or try and come in from the rear and even try and get a victory location. If for no other reason than the enemy has to drag units away from the front to deal with the incursion.
Either way - I have no interest in playing a game that is coded in such a way that you cannot change the outcome. Why bother playing if I already know the result.
I don't have your knowledge of the Civil War - so I have to bow to that - but I don't agree a "game" should be exactly as it was. I have my own ideas on how a game (certain games, not even all) should stay within the realms of reality.
I probably didn't really put any of that coherently - but oh well.
Interesting comments...I think there is a difference between a game that permits different and possibly ahistorical outcomes and a game where the AI cheats, or pursues an impractical, or historically impossible strategy in order to win.
Its great, in my opinion, if say the game permits reinforcements to arrive dynamically, or AI leaders to attempt strategies that did not occur historically. However, where the game pulls a trick that would have historically, been impossible, be it due to logistics, morale, supply, timing, exhaustion, etc., I think that crosses the line and takes something away from my enjoyment of the game.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 02:49:45 PM
Interesting comments...I think there is a difference between a game that permits different and possibly ahistorical outcomes and a game where the AI cheats, or pursues an impractical, or historically impossible strategy in order to win.
Its great, in my opinion, if say the game permits reinforcements to arrive dynamically, or AI leaders to attempt strategies that did not occur historically. However, where the game pulls a trick that would have historically, been impossible, be it due to logistics, morale, supply, timing, exhaustion, etc., I think that crosses the line and takes something away from my enjoyment of the game.
My complaint really isn't just about gamey tactics (though I think the rush-the-VP-wait-for-the-bell tactic is exactly that). The bigger problem - and one the folks over on the Steam forum seem incapable of understanding - is that programming the AI to focus on last-second VP-rushes results in the AI dissipating its forces at the point where the real battle is being fought.
My last game is a perfect example: I'm the Confederates, in the last few minutes of the first battle. I have only one capable brigade left, but it's a big one and is pressing toward the large VP on the SE edge of the map (below Seminary Ridge). The Union has one smaller brigade, plus an artillery battery, on the VP. My guys are getting blasted with canister but are slowly pressing forward on weight of numbers alone - it's an awesome, very CW-like fight, and it's going to be very close.
Suddenly, the Iron Brigade marches up from the Union rear (where they had previously retreated after being mauled by another of my brigades). I think, "Oh no! Game over." I figured the Iron Brigade would extend the Union left flank, overlapping and enfilading my lone brigade. No way my guys could have withstood both canister and flanking fire.
Instead, the Iron Brigade marches in column, past the fight, and on a bee-line toward Herr's Ridge on the NW edge of the map. There's no doubt in my mind they were targeting the VP. They marched past my artillery (who raked them with canister from the left) and past my skirmishers (who pinged them from the right) and marched like a Napoleonic column toward Herr's ridge.
They never made it. My artillery finally drove them back. In the meantime, however, I captured the SE VP by the skin of my teeth.
So programming the AI to be VP-happy isn't just gamey. It actually makes the AI weaker where it matters most.
The thing that I see in your post is that the AI is working the exact way that human players do.
They exploit the " gameyness " cracks that almost all games have.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like it either.
Which is why I only play single player games now.
Quote from: magnus on June 21, 2014, 04:35:44 PM
Which is why I only play single player games now.
Same here. Which is why I'd hate to see the AI programmed to mimic a gamey MP human.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on June 21, 2014, 02:49:45 PM
Its great, in my opinion, if say the game permits reinforcements to arrive dynamically, or AI leaders to attempt strategies that did not occur historically. However, where the game pulls a trick that would have historically, been impossible, be it due to logistics, morale, supply, timing, exhaustion, etc., I think that crosses the line and takes something away from my enjoyment of the game.
+1
i think to do the trick the AI programmer of a wargame must balance the love the AI has for taking VPs against the losses it will cost to reach the VP with penalties for destroyed own units. also all units need 'historical' (sensors and message travel times) situational awareness and selfpreservation instincts in their 'tactical AI'
that will help to collapse a 'gamy' attack or march order, even so the 'strategic AI' of the game had calculated to wage it. (cause it cant be allways perfect)
FP:RS is a good example which gives the
historical timeperiod correct feeling, but allows different approaches and even delivers different approaches by the AI. its a walk a fine line to achieve that and need a lot of beta testing and fine tuning to reach the crest (and staying there when features get added/tweaked and bugs fixed from patch to patch)
For the record (seeing as how I'm "one of the folks over at the Steam forum"), I'm 100% against the kind of behavior Queeg was talking about, and I said so there, too.
I'm not necessarily against opportunistic rear-area raids on lightly protected VPs, or even ones planned and executed by drawing out protection forces. But I realize without supply and C&C issues those are going to highlight some of the unrealistic portions of the game system (which doesn't feature supply and most C&C issues); and I think there are ways of doing it which would make better sense within the game system while still nodding in the direction of historical tactical necessities. For example, requiring a threshold of force, proportionate to the importance of the VP, to really take and secure it for ostensible usage (which translates in game terms back into "getting victory points for having it".)
So for example a 5000 VP ridgeline ought to need 5000 men to initially secure it, and perhaps should only be scored in proportion to the relative level of force parked there at the end of the match. (I say "perhaps" because once an area is initially secured then non-combatants would hold it independently of combat support on the defense -- they would be proportionately overrun or hassled by undefended spoiler attacks but two brigades wouldn't have to camp there permanently to keep the VP once initially secured.)
There must be some kind of code like this in the game already, for arbitrating conflicts over VP areas during combat. I'm thinking the principles of that code could be extended a little to achieve this result.
Quote from: JasonPratt on June 23, 2014, 12:38:26 PM
For the record (seeing as how I'm "one of the folks over at the Steam forum"), I'm 100% against the kind of behavior Queeg was talking about, and I said so there, too.
Yep, you did.
Having played a bit more, I see now that the problem probably is most acute in the opening battle, where there aren't many units on the field and the Union has a bunch of small, disposable units.
Having also paid more attention to the briefing, I see that the goal of the Union AI is to slow the Reb advance, which is exactly right. The Confederate goal is described as not losing Herr Ridge. I think perhaps the Union AI is splitting its attention between achieving its goal (slow the Reb advance) and denying the Reb goal (hold HR).
Since the Union is unlikely to ever take HR, I think the AI would be better advised in this instance to focus all its effort on stopping the Confederate forces. I've now re-fought the first battle on a variety of difficulty settings,and the Union AI always depletes its forces by sending token forces (and sometimes even a full brigade) on a fruitless charge for the Confederate rear. Far better, in this instance, to focus on the very realistic goal of mauling the Confederate units (the Rebs only have four brigades) rather than the highly unlikely one of taking Herr Ridge.
I think the AI actually is quite good overall. Sometimes, though, it can best accomplish its goals by destroying the enemy units without focusing so much on specific VPs.
I'm not sure exactly how the game calculates the "winner" at the end of a scenario, but perhaps more weight should be given to casualties than VPs - to better distinguish real from Pyrrhic victories.
Yes, I've only found it a problem when force to space ration is low or I've really left a flank open. When it happens it's annoying as hell. I'd be ok with it if it was a rare occurrence, but seems too often.
That said it's not that often and reserve deals with it. And in no way a game breaker.
Quote from: Trooperc7 on June 17, 2014, 02:19:31 PM
Well Grant`s Vicksburg campaign was deep inside enemy territory.... How about Sherman`s march to the sea? There were many cavalry raids deep inside enemy territory.. Grierson`s raid comes to mind pretty quickly.......Are we thinking about the same Civil War?
Well, in fairness, there is a difference between sending a fully self-sufficient army behind the lines and a single brigade. The latter lacks the ability to do much of anything behind the lines.
Also, Vicksburg was not behind enemy lines. The first time, Grant came from the north extending his supply line from Grand Junction. This was cut by a confederate cavalry raid (VanDorn) and compelled Grant to retreat. On the second attempt, Grant landed south of Vicksburg and Marched north to pace himself between Jackson and Vicksburg. In this case, he could still receive supply from the river and the Union largely controlled the area north of Chickasaw bluffs.
So Vicksburg was an amphibious operation into enemy territory but not behind the lines. The Mississippi River from Vicksburg north was a "line".
I'm not aware of any instant where a regiment or brigade sized unit accomplished anything of consequence behind enemy lines. If you march your brigade behind my lines, you are out of communication and very soon...ammo. Then you die
QuoteThen you die get creative!
:D
Okay back to serious game discussion. I'm sure I've played the opening Confederate mission twice (on Dynamic, the most advanced balanced level) and while I saw the AI making spoiler runs at my cannons on the ridge I never saw them trying to flank it from behind which I was really expecting since cav charges from behind on arty would surely work better (and the AI definitely had room to maneuver had it wanted to). Then again I was mainly holding the ridge since those were my orders and until late I didn't have reinforcements to try much more, only pushing forward leftward a little for an opportunistic strike on that 500 point hill to the north. But I
was defending in good cover far enough ahead of the ridgeline that the AI could have flanked me hard with a little effort and ruined my rear lines (or whatever taking that ridge would represent). Sure, I would have been able to turn around and crush them (maybe) but doing so would have exposed me to horrible rushes from the main Union line.
Of course, as Queeg says, if the AI is simply taking an opportunistic straight-line shot for a last minute VP win when conditions present themselves, that wouldn't be at all the same as rear-flanking my VPs or even going after my anchoring arty from behind with cav raiders.
Quote from: Queeg on June 23, 2014, 04:49:04 PMI'm not sure exactly how the game calculates the "winner" at the end of a scenario, but perhaps more weight should be given to casualties than VPs - to better distinguish real from Pyrrhic victories.
And then again, my impression (admittedly recorded a night's sleep later in each case) was that losses
do count more than VPs, since I was solidly ahead on VPs on both missions so far but the game scored it as a draw with about equivalent casualties. I shall try to pay more attention next time... {pondering}
New patch...interesting....
Patch 0.81 with elevation map and realistic battle speed
June 27 - DARTIS
We thank you very much for the warm reception of our game and your continuous feedback and suggestions. Many things you have asked to improve or fix are now available in our newest patch. Important new features are the elevation map layer and the revamped, more realistic combat pace accompanied by an enhanced AI. Have a look at the patch notes in our site's blog (includes some informative images):
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ultimate-general-released-2ndpatch
or read below:
Ultimate General: Gettysburg Patch 0.81 rev4590
---------------------
NEW SPECIAL FEATURES
• Added Elevation Map Layer as many players requested.
- You toggle on/off with the M key (you can re-assign button in settings).
- You can use this additional map layer to understand which hills are good for placing your artillery. Height indications are measured in feet above sea level.
• You can now restart a battle. This is a temporary solution until we finalize the multiple saves system.
GAMEPLAY IMPROVEMENTS
• Various and major AI improvements for better challenge. Union AI especially should be much more effective in holding their ground.
• Melee balance improvement. Fixed cases that could result in too low damage. Cavalry should be more effective but still preserve its vulnerability to ranged fire.
• Artillery more vulnerable to projectile damage so that it cannot be used as "tank" as it could be in some cases.
• Terrain importance enhanced. Cover, Altitude bonus to range, Movement penalties increased for making the good defensive positions even tougher to capture.
• Various improvements to morale, damage rate, combat mechanics, including the above mentioned result in a more satisfying combat pace. Not too slow, not too fast. We need your feedback if this is noticeable and works as you like.
• Flanking/Rear damage increased for more rewarding tactical maneuvers for you and the AI.
• Several improvements in Scenes concerning time of reinforcements and random events. For Union especially this will help them to have better chances in 1st day as the reinforcement routs and random delays are not as strict as before, so the flow of battle is more intense. Slocum reinforcements sometimes can delay too much and so Union AI has difficulties withstanding a possible evening attack. We will fully address this problem in next patch.
PERFORMANCE/GAME STABILITY
• Performance and FPS improvement. Lag issues should now be much less.
• Possible 3-4 seconds freezes should now not happen as frequently as before. Please let us know if you still get this problem.
• Fixed additional bug issues that caused game crashes in moment of any battle start. Next week we will sort any other pending issue related to supported resolutions.
• A new troubleshooting button is added temporarily to menu to lead you to solutions to common problems (needs internet connection).
CONTROLS
• The LoS of your selected unit (the area it can see) now no longer creates a so dark area around the unit.
• [NEW] You can now tune the LoS intensity and duration. Go to Options=>Gameplay and set it to your liking.
• [NEW] You can now use alternatively a key to rotate your units instead of middle mouse button. Default button is TAB and you can re-assign it in settings. To use, select a unit, and while pressing TAB use your mouse to rotate.
• Improved Formations pathfinding.
• Now you move only the visible units belonging to a group. This helps to control your saved formation groups better.
TEXT
• Various Corrections/Additions in main menu and battle description texts.
• All battle description messages available for Days 1,2,3. Decision room text descriptions still missing from 2nd day battles and onwards. They will be available in the next patch.
• All battle action messages available for Days 1,2,3.
BUG FIXES
• Possible issue of reinforcements not appearing at all after you load a campaign is fixed. This was a particularly annoying bug that damaged the gameplay and caused difficulties to AI especially in scenarios that reinforcements are crucial for its defense.
• Fixed additional problem that made some units invisible after loading a campaign.
• We addressed many campaign scenario issues that caused the battle to continue wrongly or to end prematurely with wrong win/loss messages to appear (more often there was a wrong "Dead lock" message). We remind that we need to finalise the battle to expand to the 4th day to completely eliminate this problem. Please continue to report such problems if you find them.
• Fixed condition that could allow artillery reinforcements to fire way out of map borders.
• Fixed cases which made units to evade or retreat in wrong directions.
• Fixed additional bug that could result in units not to shutter out of the map, despite having enormous losses.
• Fixed targeting bug that made AI and your units to prefer artillery and skirmishers too much and to ignore more serious threats near them. This bug fix makes your units to think much better with their own initiative without any micromanagement.
• Fixed major melee bug that resulted sometimes to see units having no melee collision damage at all and AI to become idle because of this.
***WARNING***
Because we had to cure some very serious bugs in the saving process, the saving system was refactored. As a result, this patch will make your old saves incompatible and not loadable. You will need to restart your battle campaign. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
Well with the new patch his is shaping up to be on the road to classic status. Not only is the gameplay great but the attention to detail is excellent. Naming all the outlying farms after their owners.
I see a great future for this engine. Napoleonic era comes to mind and really any pre WW1 era war from the start of gunpowder.
I guess for $10 it's worth trying. I have to admit I'm still very skeptical about this engine though. Downloading now...
Well, I take that back. Scourge of War it isn't, but it isn't bad at all. The game speed is ok and the UI is certainly easy to work with. Adding the contour lines to the map is a really nice touch.
I'm not sure this has the depth to be called a "classic" but it's definitely a fun and easily approachable Civil War game.
I'm glad I waited for the second patch. I didn't see the AI doing anything overtly "gamey" yet.
I'm sure it isn't trying to be as grog like as SoW, nor should it in my opinion. As an approachable wargame that looks great and is easy to play plus has a good atmosphere I'm very impressed. The fact there is more work to come can only be a good thing as it oozes potential.
It's great to play a wargame that is actually fun from start to finish without having stretches of mundane gameplay or fighting the UI or even too heavy on the old brain:)
Pick up play and watch the spectacle.
You guys are killing me. I've held off so far but with each read of this post my resolve weakens. But I can't stop myself from coming back to read more. I'm weak. Help...!
Just do it mate...not that much to spend.
Quote from: panzerde on June 28, 2014, 11:58:05 AM
I'm not sure this has the depth to be called a "classic" but it's definitely a fun and easily approachable Civil War game.
Their road map aims at a Grand Strategy level on top. A different game, I'm sure, but nice battle engine to have to fight a grand campaign with.
bought it, very nice
2 quickies - am i right in thinking artillery is a bit underpowered? i thought it would be devastating
is there any point defending water crossings or taking high ground - are those tactics represented?
Quote from: undercovergeek on June 28, 2014, 05:26:53 PM
bought it, very nice
2 quickies - am i right in thinking artillery is a bit underpowered? i thought it would be devastating
is there any point defending water crossings or taking high ground - are those tactics represented?
The attacking side will get tired easily when crossing or climbing.
The Guide isn't fully fleshed out yet but the devs said that elevation also affects morale.
I've found General proximity, cover, and flanks secured the 3 biggies.
^^ True dat!
I guess I'll need to restart my campaign now, though -- fortunately I have enough sense not to get too far into it yet. ;)
Update is due today, so may as well make sure you've got that first.
They also mentioned multiplayer is high priority due for version .9
Quote from: fabius on July 04, 2014, 01:38:15 PM
Update is due today, so may as well make sure you've got that first.
They also mentioned multiplayer is high priority due for version .9
Which update is this? Is there any info on it? Haven't seen an update today.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on July 04, 2014, 06:40:28 PM
Quote from: fabius on July 04, 2014, 01:38:15 PM
Update is due today, so may as well make sure you've got that first.
They also mentioned multiplayer is high priority due for version .9
Which update is this? Is there any info on it? Haven't seen an update today.
Somebody posted that they found it easy.
Darth replied:
"Lets see in the next patch of today!"That's all I have.
Quote from: fabius on July 04, 2014, 07:02:38 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on July 04, 2014, 06:40:28 PM
Quote from: fabius on July 04, 2014, 01:38:15 PM
Update is due today, so may as well make sure you've got that first.
They also mentioned multiplayer is high priority due for version .9
Which update is this? Is there any info on it? Haven't seen an update today.
Somebody posted that they found it easy.
Darth replied: "Lets see in the next patch of today!"
That's all I have.
Ok, thanks...I guess we will see what they got...
Patch now out...seems like some good gameplay enhancements...
0.82 patch brings Mac support (Very soon it will be enabled) and focuses on major AI & Gameplay improvements that were needed according to user feedback. Of course there were many essential bug fixes that make the game much more stable and we have addressed the annoying save bugs that could prevent you to continue your battle campaign normally.
Please read the full info in our blog: http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog/ultimate-general-released-3rdpatch
OR more summarised below
Ultimate General: Gettysburg Patch 0.82 rev4685
---------------------
NEW SPECIAL FEATURES
• [SOON AVAILABLE] Ultimate General: Gettysburg is now officially available for Mac! If you already own the Windows PC version and have a Mac PC you can launch the game via Steam and play it updated to the latest version.
Note 1: An issue that also exists temporarily in PC but can be more evident in Retina displays is that controls are not very responsive in resolutions bigger than 1920x1080. If you notice map drag, movement arrows, rotation to not work very well according to your movements then lower the resolution via display settings.
Note 2: Bug reporter button is not available in Mac version.
• Unit formation shapes now follow the ground morphology more accurately so you will be able to understand elevation and height more effectively together with the height map function of M key. Due to this enhanced visual setting the battlefield looks more realistic.
GAMEPLAY IMPROVEMENTS
• Major AI improvement. AI now plays more positionally and can be a very strong defender in all characters. Previous cases that made it possible to encircle AI (especially the Union) and destroy or corner it to the map, is now a very rare or nonexistent issue.
• AI now is able to make effectively "organic" formations and lines, securing areas with cannons and standing troops. AI will now keep much better distances between enemy and friendly units, and will use reserves and fresh troops more wisely.
• Melee balances in damages and mechanics. Now melee is much more decisive visually and in impact. You will see soldiers to expand, fight around their area and create a more realistic visual chaos. Charging and frequent hand to hand combat can bring victorious moments but also heavy disorganization and exhaustion to realistic levels.
• Combat, morale mechanics and general game balance are further improved to sustain the slower more realistic pace but also to fix issues that could make action and movement rates too slow in some cases.
• Your units will behave even more intelligently, making lines, rotating to enemy and targeting without overusing this self-awareness ability.
• Union vs Confederate combat effectiveness balanced better. Please report if Union is now a bit more powered in defense than necessary so we fine tune in next patch.
• Improved soldier movement mechanics to be more realistic, less synced.
• Slocum and Stannard now come sooner as was needed in the speculative scenarios of prolonged Confederate attack in the 1st day.
PERFORMANCE/GAME STABILITY
• Included the hotfix of ability to run game via alternate renderer for those who have difficulties launching the game:
On my second battle with the new patch. Game seems much improved. Pace is slower, but there's more to it. A competent AI is now even more of a challenge. And added features like map contour lines, LoS control and tab hot keys are helping.
Overall, very enjoyable.
Definitely getting happier with it. The pace is good and I really like the contour lines.
The AI seems more believable now. I did have a battle where the Confederate AI went haring off after a distant VP with about half their forces. That allowed me to counterattack and defeat them in detail. First time I've pulled off an Epic Victory.
Quote from: panzerde on July 07, 2014, 04:24:00 PM
Definitely getting happier with it. The pace is good and I really like the contour lines.
The AI seems more believable now. I did have a battle where the Confederate AI went haring off after a distant VP with about half their forces. That allowed me to counterattack and defeat them in detail. First time I've pulled off an Epic Victory.
I have seen that as well...almost like just going for an objective grab.
But at least they went with a reasonable number? There are 3x3 different settings of competent x aggressive after all.
Ultimate General: Gettysburg Patch 0.86 is out. <--- now has limited multiplayer. Something to add to my weekend play list.
Quote
Multiplayer and many more!
We introduce Order of Battle and Statistics to the game along with Decision Maps. Moreover we offer the first Multiplayer version! Initial version will support only 100 connections, we are going to extend the number in few days.
---------------------
Read the patch info in our blog which includes many images
http://www.ultimategeneral.com/blog//ultimate-general-released-7thpatch-hotfix
or below
NEW FEATURES
- Limited Multiplayer Functionality: When you launch the game you have the option to use the Multiplayer version. In two special multiplayer scenarios you can battle against your friends or other opponents. Multiplayer is not stable yet. We need your feedback about issues you may anticipate.
- After Battle Statistics: You can now review the units performance after a battle. By default, the statistics list includes all the units for both armies sorted by number of kills. You can also sort by other categories and filter according to unit type.
- Full Order of Battle: Before a battle you can review the armies organization of the units that will participate in the engagement. After a battle you have the option to review the full army for both sides including info such as casualties, morale, condition etc.
- Decision Maps: You finally can see a map that will describe the available strategic decisions after a battle (There are 17 errors of Unavailable maps which we will fix in next patch).
GAMEPLAY IMPROVEMENTS
- Various AI improvements according to forum feedback. AI will be most active and responsive than ever.
- Slight US/CS combat balances.
- Artillery targeting tweaks.
- Duration of battle increased for several Day 1 / Phase 2 scenarios.
- Charge/Chase duration is now less. Units can no longer chase too far away their targets and isolate themselves.
- Melee slight rebalance.
- Pettigrew slight rebalance to be a little more effective in long range combat.
- Final battle outcome has now better result calculations, based more on casualties.
- Fatigue balances to make slow and defensive maneuvers more rewarding.
- Balanced Victory points of 3rd day battle (in preparation for the 4th day).
TEXT/CAMPAIGN BATTLE FLOW
- Minor fixes in texts.
- Some Battle Flow fixes.
BUG FIXES
- Fixed retreat freezing bug. In previous version it was possible to see units freeze in borders after a retreat with running animation.
- Fixed another freeze bug that could happen when reinforcements were stuck at borders of the map.
- Fixed problems that could result in wrong retreat paths. Full solution will arrive after a melee bug fix.
- Fixed an AI issue of moving its units without seeing and reacting to close by bigger threats (Zombie effect). The issue is not fully solved but is much less frequent.
- Fixed map not scrolling enough to the south.
- Fixed resurrection of units in next battle after being totally destroyed.
---------------------
We made a lot of changes for the single player mode in this update but the first version of Multiplayer needs your biggest attention. There are obvious limitations in menu and in functionality which we will address. Right now it is important to narrow down all possible stability problems with your help. Multiplayer has also slightly different gameplay so if you notice an inconsistency please report it to us. Share your feedback in our Game-Labs Forum and in Steam Forum.
Necro-posting a bit... but..
Ultimate General is 50% off today on Steam
http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/
Love this game. A must buy for anyone interested in the American Civil War.
+100!
Once again Ultimate General: Gettysburg is on sale at Steam (http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/) for $7.49 (50% off) for another 27 hours or so.
If those of you who bought the game had it to do over again, would you buy it? Or has it not met up to your expectations?
UG is totally worth full price. Was worth it on original release before the patches and upgrades, too.
Admittedly, I stopped playing it pretty quickly because the updates were coming so fast that they tended to mess with campaign progress. This is not so much a problem anymore.
Even then, to clarify, I had no remorse. Still very much don't, and that's despite having gone back to play Take Command 2 and Scourge of War, which this game is largely similar to.
Absolutely worth it. Probably one of the best values in a game I have bought in the last five years.
I've gone back and played all my SOW games with all the buzz coming about the new Waterloo game. I have to say, I actually like the UG game better. The campaign was a lot of fun, and the casualties carry over from each chapter with dynamic strategic choices In between the battles.
It is a good game, a great deal at the sale price.
Thanks, guys. O0
Game bought!
Let us know what someone with your avatar photo thinks of it, Grey! O0
Quote from: JasonPratt on May 09, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Let us know what someone with your avatar photo thinks of it, Grey! O0
My avatar approves of it and fits right in. ;)
UG:G is now on GOG.com (http://www.gog.com/game/ultimate_general_gettysburg) and on sale for $10 until June 4.
I've been waiting forever for this to show up on Android. This is much better; a DRM-free version on my PC!
Does GoG autopatch now through their new front-end? Because this is a game that definitely benefited from Steam being able to autopatch it. ;)
Quote from: JasonPratt on May 28, 2015, 11:42:31 AM
Does GoG autopatch now through their new front-end?
Yes. (It does for The Witcher 3 so i guess it does for all the games)
Agrippa has just done a Beginner's Tutorial video on Ultimate General Gettysburg, so I thought it would be welcomed here:
Kudos to Agrippa for dishing out tips on gameplay for the newcomers to the game, and hopefully making the borging process into wargaming a smoother one. :)
Going cheap on Steam
http://store.steampowered.com/app/306660/