If this game ever receives a sequel….

[aewhistory]

If this game were to ever receive a sequel (I’d be thrilled btw) there are some things that I would love to see and was wondering what you all would like? Here are some of my incomplete ideas:

1. I would switch the large battles from segmented (where you fight a slew of small battles for Gettysburg, for example) to something where you genuinely fight the whole battle.

2. For the above I would modify the victory conditions to reflect historic issues as well as player “cheating.” For instance, a system where certain positions accumulate VPs would encourage the union to hold onto Gettysburg as long as possible before relinquishing it. Otherwise the Union player could simply run back to a good position and hook up with reinforcements, right? But if the victory conditions are weighted/accumulated then this becomes a far less desirable option.

3. This system I am describing (probably poorly) in part 2 could be used to alter scripting. Again, if the union simply runs for Gettysburg to combine forces then there is a chance that Meade decides not to fight there and it becomes a Union defeat. Moreover, battlefield decisions could/should have an effect on things like where reinforcements come in most of the time. Except at Fredericksburg the two sides generally couldn’t have crammed thousands of troops across a bridge if the player stations a whole Corps there. Likewise, if the player chooses to ambush the spot that the PC is going to get reinforcements (hence using knowledge they shouldn’t have) then the Pc should consider alternate routes!

4. A simplistic grand strategy element would be awesome. I would love to fight out the entire civil war using battle system. Both sides would get certain amounts of manpower, money, etc. and battles would have political effects that alter things. In fact, just as the player can spend personal prestige, the two sides could opt to spend national prestige for certain things and risk their prestige hitting zero.

5. If no.4 is too much to implement (it would be a huge change, but hardly impossible) then it would be nice to have some other options. Give the player the option of an eastern, western, or even a Trans Miss campaign.

6. The game needs some sort of role for army commanders. It is weird having RE Lee and Johnston in charge of two of my corps. Instead I would like to assign an “army” leader who will give the army certain attributes.

7. On that note, I’d love the leaders to have a little more…. Something. For example, each leader could have two ratings: competence and initiative. initiative decides how quickly your orders are implemented. This would be key for when you’re trying to coordinate thousands of solders and some knucklehead drags his feet or doesn’t see something as urgent. Competence would be how well the orders are executed.

So this would be in the game something like this: you give two brigades the same orders: move down a road, around a flank, and engage the enemy. One leader, a competent one with poor initiative waits a few minutes in game to get moving. For whatever reason, he take a lackadaisical attitude, but once he gets moving he implements your orders EXACTLY. The other commander is a “get it done” sort of person (hence the great initiative) but they’re also a bonehead (incompetent). They begin moving immediately but then takes the wrong fork in the road and begin walking away from the battle. You notice this fairly quickly and turn them around and the second time they go almost where you want them, but still not quite. dealing with stupid people is annoying….


Anyway, I have more ideas, but this already seems like too much. I really enjoy this game, so hopefully some of these would be improvements. Anyone have any ideas? Thoughts, etc?

[Koro]

Spot on :).
There were some limitiations for this game both regarding performance end development that required some of the compromises you would like to be different in the next game.
F.x. the division of the battles.
I tested a version of Fredericksburg where it was in one piece and while it was awesome it unfortunately was not possible to run the game with so many troops on the board at once without lag.
Hopefully that can be changed in the future

[aewhistory]

Originally posted by Koro:

Spot on :).
There were some limitiations for this game both regarding performance end development that required some of the compromises you would like to be different in the next game.
F.x. the division of the battles.
I tested a version of Fredericksburg where it was in one piece and while it was awesome it unfortunately was not possible to run the game with so many troops on the board at once without lag.
Hopefully that can be changed in the future

Thanks Koro, I’m really glad someone liked my thoughts. I was just playing UG and realized a few other things…. Well, mostly one main thing with a few branches. The game needs to record more history!

For example, Koltes died at Gettysburg for me. Is this recorded somewhere? I don’t think so. Once these guys are in the ground they are gone, but it adds so much flavor to be able to look back and see how things unfolded. likewise, on the brigade history ledger you can include who led that brigade in each battle. It helps give continuity as well as flavor.

Then there are the battles themselves. Why not allow the player to rewatch the battle after they are done? Dozens of games have a variant of this feature, right? This one would benefit from it methinks.

In regard to your points Koro, that is great feedback and even better to hear. It sounds like the devs were already thinking in terms of some of these things but ran into real world limitations. I am totally sympathetic to that. developers take so much ♥♥♥♥♥ from people who expect the world and then want to pay $.99 or who don’t realize that some of us run potatoes. That doesn’t mean the game can’t be improved—everything can be improved, right?—but people need to be reasonable about it on many levels. (I sincerely hope my comments don’t come off as being like some of these peeps if the devs read this.) So if most machines lag running the whole battle then this decision makes a ton of sense and, hopefully, with machines getting more powerful this can be put aside in an ostensible sequel.

EDIT: I just came up with something else about leader attributes. If the leaders get some attributes then the player will certainly assign only the good ones, right? So it should cost prestige to sideline leaders with lots of their own prestige (but suffering from lack of brain cells). This can be part of a system that will force players to deploy leaders of less than optimal quality. After all, you are unlikely to have enough political points to dump all the imbeciles.

EDIT2: I just can’t shut up. Koro, you gave me an idea. I wonder if the devs would consider a DLC where they released certain options like integrated battles? If this was already tested then it exists somewhere, right? So slap a price on it and let us buy those battles instead of fighting them in parts. The Devs earn a little extra money, the players get a nice new option to the game, and hopefully the extra money will allow more development for this system. I would love to support the devs more…. I’m even considering getting Ultimate Admiral even though I don’t like naval games.

[Koro]

I can appreciate the enthusiasm for sure :)
Personally I would like to see the battles pieced together like Fredericksburg in to one battle in a sort of "play at your own risk and not recommended" mode.
I don't see it happening though unfortunately.
We can look forward to the new game(s) where much of what you desire will happen and even more. The goal post is really high as far as I can tell and that is probably why it's taking so long for anything to come out. I hope it will all happen.
Regarding this game, it is worth remembering it was the 2nd game of a new studio and ambitious as they were to want to portray the entire civil war after making a game about only 1 battle, the limitations I mentioned had to be put in simply because the scope of making every battle able to branch of in every possible direction would be too big a scope.
UGG does this very well actually. When you look at just how many scenarios it has though, you might understand why it wasn't possible in UGCW.
AoS is quite different from UGCW. I learned to appreciate the naval combat that i had never gotten in to in Empire fx. The limitations on the land battles aren't as pronounced as in UGCW as they are fought in one piece but they aren't as grand either. So there is a trade off.
https://www.ug1775.com/ is for the next game. It says you can buy it now but you can't

[Hugh de Salle]

Would love to see Regimental system in place when making brigades.

As it stands although you could make Regiments their are not enough slots in a Corp so i would like to see Brigades and Divisions have there own slots like corps then you just slip the made division into your corp slot.

[aewhistory]

Sorry for the slow reply. I lost my original reply (don’t you hate that?) and then kind of got sidetracked. Anyway, this new game looks awesome! If I understand it you can zoom in and out and the game adjusts what level the units operate on!? It seems like you can go from company to maybe battalion and then regiment?* If so, that is amazing. I can’t wait to buy it. I have been a huge fan of Birth of America (1 and 2) and this seems like that but on steroids…. And what doesn’t steroids improve? Well, except the size of genitals—steroids definitely doesn’t help there. ;) Is there any general idea when this game comes out? I don’t want to be impatient, it is just that I would like it right this minute. ;)

Btw, I definitely know what you mean Koro. It seemed to me that the Gettysburg game was more of a means to prove the concept, gauge interest, and get a product out of the door to get the company running sort of product. I don’t mean that in a negative way in the least, just that you can see how they are a small company starting out and building things up. So UGCW being only their second game and being as robust as it is, for me, is quite an accomplishment. It probably couldn’t have been done without the people who bought Gettysburg (I got it on the iPig, though I can’t recall if it was a purchase or free at the time?).

Hugh, if you haven’t done so already, check out the link that Koro posted. It sounds like your wish, or part of it, is definitely coming true. I assume you’d like to see a regimental system for the brigades in UGCW, so hopefully in the future. (As an aside, I fully agree with you, though it might be better as an option one can turn on and off as I can see some players not wanting the micromanaging.) For the most part I really like the org system that UGCW uses. It is a nice balance between detail and getting bogged down in details for me. Some people like more tactical, others more strategic, while I like a sort of middle ground that is hard to find.

*- there weren’t really brigades in use during the AmerRevWar, but they could be applied anachronistically I suppose. Still, the armies were so small that this seems unnecessary.