Is It Just Me?

[Ice On The Rocks]

I absolutely loved UG: Civil War! My only real complaint is/was the forced "Scaling". So naturally, I was really excited to buy UA: Age of Sail in 2021. I really liked it at first, and I felt the sailing was done very well and was a great addition to an already great series. Pretty quickly though, I realized the land battles were very broken, largely due to path-finding issues that were never fixed (there was an update that was supposed to address this, but it didn't seem to fix anything). Then, in November of 2021, the game was completely abandoned.

When I first heard about UG: American Revolution, I was conflicted. Part of me was excited, but another part of me was bothered that the dev's were asking for more money for a game that takes place in the same setting as the game they abandoned three years ago.

And now after buying UG:AR anyway, I'm realizing that the path-finding issues that broke land battles in UA:AoS are still present, and from what I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) development on naval battles is temporarily frozen, even though they were great in the last game.

TLDR: Is it just me, or did the developers just charge $50 (I paid $40+tax because I own their other games) for what is essentially a broken update to a game they abandoned? And why did they change (and break) the land battles when they had been so great in UG: Civil War? Also, why change the naval battles that were so great in UA:AoS?

No hate, please! I'm just a conflicted guy asking for other people's opinions.

[Ice On The Rocks]

To be fair, the changes in the strategic map and economy are more aligned with a new game rather than an update, but when the core of the game seems broken, I feel like time and resources should go to fixing those problems, instead of trying to expand on more parts of the game while ignoring the problems and potentially creating new ones. It really kind of feels like they simply took Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail, mixed in Grand Tactician: The Civil War's strategic map, and released it as a new game.

[oldfox]

I agree that I like the battles in CWG much better

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Mostly agree.

AoS has good naval combat but didn't need a system of having two navies encounter each other on the strategic map. Because UG:AR has a system of armies and navies running into each other and then joining into battle, that changed up some of the naval play. AoS had the ability to have things like the wind direction timed out and scripted to make certain things happen... here, it's not as easy since battles aren't hand-crafted.

Was pathing really *that* bad in AoS, though? The only issue I remember was that one map had tons of hills/mountains and that my units would not even draw a pathing line to some spots I clicked on. But it was pretty much only that one map. It's been a while, so I could be forgetting what it was like, I guess.

But it's UA:Dreadnaughts that made me far more skeptical (even prior to seeing UG:AR is an Early Access game priced like a AAA full release).

UA:D basically never got things right. For me, AoS seemed pretty complete at the time it was left, so that one I wouldn't call 'abandoned'; but UA:D is the one that felt pretty abandoned where key systems and balancing still never really got totally fixed.

But in the end, as much as I am holding off from getting UG:AR, it's arguably more than a 'broken update' to AoS. AoS didn't have any strategic layer at all, so UG:AR is a completely different game in some ways. That doesn't make it a better game, or even maybe a worthwhile game, yet. But it's definitely not just an update.

For all of that, I could still be won over to UG:AR. Fix up the presentation quality, balance stuff better, add the British campaign, and make the strategic layer a bit more engaging, and it could earn the hefty price tag at some point. It's just not at all close yet to doing some of that.

[bikes02]

Originally posted by Ice On The Rocks:

but when the core of the game seems broken, I feel like time and resources should go to fixing those problems, instead of trying to expand on more parts of the game while ignoring the problems and potentially creating new ones.

You only have to see here at the 22:37 minute mark that they have still not really fixed the retreating problem(since last year)where instead of your troops passing back through your own lines they go towards the enemy. How dumb is that lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvdKDiFhyc

Totally agree that any core problems should be fixed before adding any further content. I'll buy this game when everything has been fixed and all the content has been added. With my past experience of EA games I will no longer be paying full price just to be a quality control guinea pig tester.

[fred]

I thought the only thing lacking in CW was a strategical part to the game like the map here. The camp was a great idea, setting your Corps up as you wanted, giving your units the best weapons to complement their role (fixing with firepower, assaulting the line etc). Battles felt epic especially the big ones. Loved the sea battles on AoS as well but thought the land battles a bit lacking but liked the idea of amphibious assaults.

My problem with this game though is when you try and move companies in line they tend to crisscross each others paths. For example advancing 5 companies, the extreme left and right flank units 80% of the time want to swap positions and this leads to said units getting flanked a lot. This did happen in CW but nowhere near as much as here.

The game is in EA so things like this are expected. Suppose the ideal game for me would be the Strategic map and infrastructure of this game. The camp and the battles of CW and lastly the sea battles of AoS.

[Ice On The Rocks]

Originally posted by Aluminum Elite Master:

Mostly agree.

AoS has good naval combat but didn't need a system of having two navies encounter each other on the strategic map. Because UG:AR has a system of armies and navies running into each other and then joining into battle, that changed up some of the naval play. AoS had the ability to have things like the wind direction timed out and scripted to make certain things happen... here, it's not as easy since battles aren't hand-crafted.

Was pathing really *that* bad in AoS, though? The only issue I remember was that one map had tons of hills/mountains and that my units would not even draw a pathing line to some spots I clicked on. But it was pretty much only that one map. It's been a while, so I could be forgetting what it was like, I guess.

But it's UA:Dreadnaughts that made me far more skeptical (even prior to seeing UG:AR is an Early Access game priced like a AAA full release).

UA:D basically never got things right. For me, AoS seemed pretty complete at the time it was left, so that one I wouldn't call 'abandoned'; but UA:D is the one that felt pretty abandoned where key systems and balancing still never really got totally fixed.

But in the end, as much as I am holding off from getting UG:AR, it's arguably more than a 'broken update' to AoS. AoS didn't have any strategic layer at all, so UG:AR is a completely different game in some ways. That doesn't make it a better game, or even maybe a worthwhile game, yet. But it's definitely not just an update.

For all of that, I could still be won over to UG:AR. Fix up the presentation quality, balance stuff better, add the British campaign, and make the strategic layer a bit more engaging, and it could earn the hefty price tag at some point. It's just not at all close yet to doing some of that.

I probably should have mentioned that I haven't gotten to any naval combat in UG:AR yet, so I can't really say what's changed/needed to be changed. I just read something about it "being frozen" and thought at the time that they didn't really need to change anything, but you've made some great points.

As for the path-finding in UA:AoS... it was absolutely terrible! XD It actually kept me from ever progressing too much in either campaign until I eventually gave up on the game. I loved the naval battles, but land battles were so broken. Units got caught on every obstacle (fences, houses, etc.) and would end up so scattered that you don't actually know where your unit is because the icon has just placed itself roughly in the middle of all your scattered units, which you then have to allow to regroup before you can fire a volley. I understand the complications of marching long distances in formation, so in theory this sounds good, but in practice it completely broke the land battles and I see a lot of the same issues in this game. Although, it does seem like you can no longer get caught on fences specifically, which is a massive improvement!

I never played UA:D but I saw that mostly everyone felt the same as you. That's probably why I never bothered. I was also pretty salty about UA:AoS at the time.

Finally, I do agree that the changes to the strategic campaign constitute more than an update, as I mentioned earlier, but considering the problems with the land battles, I think they should have focused on fixing things, not expanding other parts of the game. It seems like they're trying to compete with Grand Tactician: The Civil War (which is also broken, unfortunately) so they copied GT's strategic layer and mixed it with UA:AoS while ignoring most of UA:AoS's issues, and are charging a huge price for it.

[Ice On The Rocks]

Originally posted by bikes02:

Originally posted by Ice On The Rocks:

but when the core of the game seems broken, I feel like time and resources should go to fixing those problems, instead of trying to expand on more parts of the game while ignoring the problems and potentially creating new ones.

You only have to see here at the 22:37 minute mark that they have still not really fixed the retreating problem(since last year)where instead of your troops passing back through your own lines they go towards the enemy. How dumb is that lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvdKDiFhyc

Totally agree that any core problems should be fixed before adding any further content. I'll buy this game when everything has been fixed and all the content has been added. With my past experience of EA games I will no longer be paying full price just to be a quality control guinea pig tester.

Unit's retreating towards the enemy is so frustrating! Now that I think about it, I do believe that was sometimes an issue in UG:CW as well. It was still a great game, though!

[Ice On The Rocks]

Originally posted by fred:

I thought the only thing lacking in CW was a strategical part to the game like the map here. The camp was a great idea, setting your Corps up as you wanted, giving your units the best weapons to complement their role (fixing with firepower, assaulting the line etc). Battles felt epic especially the big ones. Loved the sea battles on AoS as well but thought the land battles a bit lacking but liked the idea of amphibious assaults.

My problem with this game though is when you try and move companies in line they tend to crisscross each others paths. For example advancing 5 companies, the extreme left and right flank units 80% of the time want to swap positions and this leads to said units getting flanked a lot. This did happen in CW but nowhere near as much as here.

The game is in EA so things like this are expected. Suppose the ideal game for me would be the Strategic map and infrastructure of this game. The camp and the battles of CW and lastly the sea battles of AoS.

I've definitely experienced that issue a few times, and it is really frustrating! Mostly though, I micromanage my troops, moving only one regiment (sometimes two, but only rarely) at a time to get them just where I want them. For the most part, that eliminates that issue, but obviously not everyone wants to micromanage.

[bikes02]

Originally posted by Ice On The Rocks:

Originally posted by bikes02:

You only have to see here at the 22:37 minute mark that they have still not really fixed the retreating problem(since last year)where instead of your troops passing back through your own lines they go towards the enemy. How dumb is that lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qvdKDiFhyc

Totally agree that any core problems should be fixed before adding any further content. I'll buy this game when everything has been fixed and all the content has been added. With my past experience of EA games I will no longer be paying full price just to be a quality control guinea pig tester.

Unit's retreating towards the enemy is so frustrating! Now that I think about it, I do believe that was sometimes an issue in UG:CW as well. It was still a great game, though!

Strangely enough I've never had that problem with UG:CW and I have just over 2000hrs in that game

[Ice On The Rocks]

Originally posted by bikes02:

Originally posted by Ice On The Rocks:

Unit's retreating towards the enemy is so frustrating! Now that I think about it, I do believe that was sometimes an issue in UG:CW as well. It was still a great game, though!

Strangely enough I've never had that problem with UG:CW and I have just over 2000hrs in that game

It was never too much of a problem, but I've definitely had units retreating 90 degrees to the right or left, away from everybody. It was mostly a non-issue, but just like the time limit (which was another mild frustration when looking back) every once and a while it would just ruin a battle that was otherwise going perfectly.

I'm no coder, so I might sound really ignorant here, but I don't understand what's so complicated about simply making the unit move 180 degrees away from the nearest enemy when retreating. I guess complications could arise when surrounded my multiple groups at roughly the same distance. Perhaps that's the issue. Like I said, I'm no coder.