When UG: Napoleon?

[Muaddib]

Right now UG engine is best strategy engine next to Total War, but dev picks boring themes. Go for Napoleon and crush Total War dominance.

[Pasky]

Well let's be fair: a Napoleonic game with the same idea as UG:AR would have been very ambitious as the try of the grand strategy games. The others, as we know, have been primarily tactical games. But UG:AR gives them their opportunity to have a proof of concept, and their way of going about the campaign (by slowly withdrawing outward with time, for the US at least) gives them the ability to see how the player's experience changes as the operational region grows.

Let's take this game for what it is: a proof of concept. The American Revolution is a relatively untouched area by their games, so it was a logical next step for a game to try something new. I'd expect the next game to be the American Civil War, since that seems to be a passion of theirs. I personally would think that Napoleonics will come after their next big game in the series, and I personally don't want them to take it on until there's a good, workable, and comprehensive government and diplomacy system.

All in all I'm with you: I totally want a good Napoleon game!

[Harry Flashman]

I hope this engine is gonna be around for a number of conflicts and agreed, Napoleonic is a priority (though the Age of Rifles, Pike and Shot eras and the like have potential). I think we're all looking forward to a greater variety of troops and uniforms but there's no rush (there's a lot going on here!).

As part of a Napoleonic game, they could also include 'theatre scenarios' where you don't do the whole 25-year-long war but zoom in to say the Peninsular or the Wagram campaign and so on. Would also work for multiplayer, hem hem, but I don't know if that will ever return post-Gettysburg (which seems a shame as these games must be insane against a human... 'Sid Meier's Gettysburg was too).

[kf.*****]

next logical step I see is the american cival war, as most of the components are already in place.

[Harry Flashman]

Agreed, and it also has satisfying theatres to explore.

[Caliph Charlemagne]

or Seven Years' War

[Pasky]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Léon:

or Seven Years' War

I think this could easily be a DLC campaign for UG:AR. For the F+I Theater, we already have everything we need to accommodate that campaign. For Europe, I feel like that'd be a monster to have to handle, and would take a while to develop, the states of the HRE alone would be a massive problem to solve (how complex it would be, how the AI would behave and be calculated for each one, etc.).

I love the format of this game and think it has so much potential for the future. And like others, I feel like this could easily eclipse Total War. However, I personally want them to take it slow and steady so that they don't make any mistakes or cut any corners. The last thing we want is them to move this series to Europe with all of its nations, complexities, and considerations and wind up botching it because they shot of the moon without testing their rockets properly.

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

Making another game about the American Civil War is worst possible choice. We already have Grand Tactician for that. Please just get out of America for the next one.

Seven Years War should also be avoided, as the devs of Fire & Maneuver are making a game like this about the Seven Years War.

A Napoleonic game does not have to be as "ambitious" as some make it out to be. It can be limited to a single war, like the Third Coalition, with only three playable factions - France, Austria, Russia.

[Pasky]

A Napoleonic game does not have to be as "ambitious" as some make it out to be. It can be limited to a single war, like the Third Coalition, with only three playable factions - France, Austria, Russia. [/quote]

I want to respectfully disagree with this sentiment. The Third Coalition was formed to defeat France and depose Napoleon. There were political concerns within the Holy Roman Empire, and it was far larger and wide than just the Austerlitz campaign. It's ambitious because the nations you mention span across all of the continent of Europe, and not only do you have to fill the space between those countries, you also have to give the game (not just the player) something to do in that area between,

Additionally, I don't think GT should have a monopoly on this genre. If UG wants to compete, that will only be good for these games and us as players. When devs have no competition, they get high on their own farts and churn out reskinned garbage every year. I would personally really be interested in a Civil War form of this game someday. Rather than getting a Napoleonic game ASAP because we like the format of this game, let them move slowly to build up to the big stuff.

[tHeCeLt21]

Battles at 7,000 + each side currently are a pain in the ass. They need to increase the zoom-out and/or make major improvements to the tactical mini-map. The battle of Leipzig had some 550,000 troops involved. a battle a 1/4 that size would be so hard to manage in the current state of the game that it would be pointless to play it.

[Pasky]

Diposting pertama kali oleh tHeCeLt21:

Battles at 7,000 + each side currently are a pain in the ass. They need to increase the zoom-out and/or make major improvements to the tactical mini-map. The battle of Leipzig had some 550,000 troops involved. a battle a 1/4 that size would be so hard to manage in the current state of the game that it would be pointless to play it.

Welp, it took you less than half the words to state my point better lol

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

I do not think American Civil War, or the American Continent should also have a monopoly on this genre, because that is what it feels like currently.

And the size of the theater for the average individual Napoleonic War is actually much smaller than the area this game covers.

Any concerns about army sizes is also moot. UGCW covered battles involving two hundred thousand soldiers. Just a matter of keeping the command and control at brigade level. The more granular level of control makes sense for the much smaller armies of the US Revolutionary War, but not for Napoleonic Wars.

Personally speaking, with time for gaming diminishing every year due to increasing family and work obligations, I would rather the developers do not take it too slow. It has been 10 years and four "ultimate" series games starting with Gettysburg. They have already taken it pretty slow.

[Rodso]

i do believe Napoleonic wars is the end goal or at least their next step once AR is done

AR is the proof of concept

[RivvenDarke]

Im quite sure they will do US Civil War next. Its just a safe bet as many people will buy it.

[the evil one]

Diposting pertama kali oleh RivvenDarke:

Im quite sure they will do US Civil War next. Its just a safe bet as many people will buy it.

A cw version of this with the same battle mechanics as the jp mod would sell by the boatload
Some periods or even just sides in a war don't sell well in games, The revolution is just too niche for the mass market with not enough interest in it worldwide
Starni games found with the strategic mind series they all sold well except for the "spirit of communism" despite it being Imo better than than earlier games with good mechanics and they just didn't understand why earlier and later releases sold so many more copies
In the end with the feedback and surveys etc they found not enough people wanted to play as Russia no matter how good the game was ( I still think putting the word communism in the title didn't help it sell either)

For some reason the US civil war generates a lot more interest than the revolution

[Pasky]

Diposting pertama kali oleh the evil one:

Diposting pertama kali oleh RivvenDarke:

Im quite sure they will do US Civil War next. Its just a safe bet as many people will buy it.

A cw version of this with the same battle mechanics as the jp mod would sell by the boatload
Some periods or even just sides in a war don't sell well in games, The revolution is just too niche for the mass market with not enough interest in it worldwide
Starni games found with the strategic mind series they all sold well except for the "spirit of communism" despite it being Imo better than than earlier games with good mechanics and they just didn't understand why earlier and later releases sold so many more copies
In the end with the feedback and surveys etc they found not enough people wanted to play as Russia no matter how good the game was ( I still think putting the word communism in the title didn't help it sell either)

For some reason the US civil war generates a lot more interest than the revolution

I think you're exactly right here. Civil War captures imaginations for a multitude of reasons. Here in the US, there's the attraction of it being close to home(or being home), it's still socio-culturally relevant in many ways (not just political), there's the romanticism of its battles and commanders, and of course no shortage of morbid fascination with its brutality and destruction. On that last point, there's still something about the old photos of Civil War battlefields after the fighting stopped on those days that pulls one's attention in.

Speaking as someone who was born and raised in New England but with deep family roots in the South (more members of my family served in the Confederacy than I can count), I find the period incredibly interesting. One more personal point some might sympathize with is the idea of commanding either side's armies with the challenge in mind of "can I avoid the mistakes of the North" or "can I avoid the eventual crumble of the South" is a really attractive challenge. It's one of the many things that brought me to Grand Tactician when it came out.

Only speculating on Europe, but the ACW was a spectator event for them. It was a moment to sit and wonder, "How do the Americans fight wars?" The brutality, cost in men, and time it took to answer that question is one of those things that captures the above-mentioned morbid fascination and curiosity. Add in the fact that any information that travels over an ocean before it is digested will eventually be remembered in its own romanticized/sensationalized way. This is the tendency with information that isn't totally important or relevant to a people: they make it interesting in order to hold onto it, and that has an odd way of sometimes making the truth that much more entertaining.

I personally think that a grand strategy ACW game is the next logical step for UG. They have the map which only needs some expansion and updating. They are working their butts off at improving and smoothing gameplay for this game. This is absolutely a proof of concept, and an ACW game would add another major proof of concept for having multiple major nation entities on the same map interacting with each other (USA, CSA, Brit Canada, Mexico if they go that far), which would be the stepping stone for a complex game centered on the Napoleonic Age. And yes, to those that don't think so, a Napoleonic game would be worlds more complicated and theaters much more significant than AR or ACW due to the populations of the countries involved by themselves (yes, even in just the 3rd Coalition campaign).

So yeah, UG team, please take your time and make your games as they should be made. Do not rush it, do not cut corners. Do what needs to be done to give us the game that Total War should have always been. You are doing great so far, and your discussion asking for feedback gave me a ton of hope. Merry Christmas.

These are my thoughts. Hope you all find them constructive or interesting. If not, oh well lol. Till next time, may all your battles be just close enough to be as entertaining as possible.