So, I was wondering... What's next?

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

I'm sorry if I missed an obvious blog post or discussion, I'm a little new here.

I was just wondering if anybody knows what will happen to the Ultimate General franchise after Civil War development is complete. Will they work on more Civil War-related projects? Branch out into other wars?(A Revelutionary War or Nepoleonic game with these mechanics would be pretty sweet). Or was this just a one-and-done deal, the developers never to release anything again?

Because at this point, I would buy pretty much any further game that this franchise develops, regardless of the price.

[The Soldier]

Well, considering they made UG:G and then proceeded to make UG:CW, I'm assuming they're going to try to keep this title up and running.

[Col_Kelly]

Only thing I know is that the devs intend to keep going after this game. Next games content remains a mistery however. 

[veji1]

Well I have no clue, but considering that they seemed to have found a very functional tactical model for musketry dominated battles, they should be able to make games covering from 1700 to 1870... prime candidate because of the popularity after the CW would be a Napoleonic game. The tactical module, the heart and soul of the current game is stable, very good and should be used in more games. Now the other question is whether they can / want to make a bit more of a campaign game or keep it as it is, a very simple "Robert Lee general" of series of battles that are called a campaign but are very linear. One element of complexity in the campaign game could be to do what John Tiller did in his games where options are given to the player in a mini campaign leading to slight variations. But the franchise has great potential.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Land-in  and boarding battles for naval action ? 

 

  ... please ?

[Fred Sanford]

I'd like to see a land-based "Rule the Waves" (RTW).  If you're not familiar with RTW, it's a dreadnought-era naval game where you design your own ships (you play as the Admiral-in-chief), research technologies, and have to be prepared to fight other powers- you have a little influence on foreign affairs but most is out of you hands.  When war comes, the game is basically a scenario generator for tactical naval battles. (Disclosure: I beta-tested RTW).

Using this as an analog, I'd like to see a game where the player chooses a nation and has a budget to organize, arm, and staff his army.  Sort of an uber-camp, played in say quarterly or annual turns in peacetime, and running throughout the 19th century or a portion thereof.  There'd be a map of the globe (or maybe stick to Europe) with zones or territories to deploy your army in.  Wars could come at any time, and when it does, the game generates scenarios for you to do battle in.  

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I think a War of 1812 or Revolutionary War campaign would be fantastic! I mean, the mechanics could practically remain the same, and the same kind of linear campaign system would work. Leading George Washington, or Charles Cornwallis as they fight across America... It could be pretty awesome.

[Col_Kelly]

You mean the war of French assistance ? I'd be ok with that

The war of 1812 is a bit lacking in terms of large size engagements though.

[The Soldier]

52 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I think a War of 1812 or Revolutionary War campaign would be fantastic! I mean, the mechanics could practically remain the same, and the same kind of linear campaign system would work. Leading George Washington, or Charles Cornwallis as they fight across America... It could be pretty awesome.

The thing I have against any earlier engagements is, "oh, look, it's a musket....and another musket....oh, did I mention that's a musket too?".  There's little to no weapon variation since everything was a smoothbore and, since there wasn't a revolution in weapons technology at the time, like there was during the Civil War, they'd all be similar statistically.  Not much customization and fine-tuning available for units.

I feel that medieval battles would be much more interesting - you have a plethora of different units, from mounted and dismounted knights, archers with crossbows or bows, horse archers, pike infantry, sword infantry, siege artillery and maybe (depending on how far they allow the game to go) basic firearms like arquebuses.  You can even still consolidate the types of soldier into basic types like UG:CW currently has them.  You might even be able to add in things like the type of armor your units wear, from just a gambeson to chainmail to plate armor and have that affect performance in different ways.

And hell, if you want to widen the coverage of battles, just make the player the leader of a band of mercenaries to be hired to fight, on either side at that - and the player can then choose what battle they want to participate in and on what side, if that's available, for example.  Although with that setup, you'd have to set up AI-led armies on both sides and have the player support their friendly forces.

Edited March 27, 2017 by The Soldier

[A. P. Hill]

A shame actually that some people don't get history.

There are quite a few of us that would play a historical reproduction game just to recreate history, or change it if possible with the tools at hand, and enjoy it immensely. 

Not every game needs to be a fantasy, where a player can completely ignore actual historical fact.

And don't feed me the crap about making it playable or more interesting, it's apparent that these fantasy players are more interested in their fantasy than recreating history for what it was.

Recreating history can be just as enjoyable.  If it doesn't fit your play style then go find a game that will. 

[XCLBR]

choose files... Click to choose files

[Koro]

I'd vote for Rome, yet again. The game will need some sort of collision system with a "squeeze" in order to make encircling an enemy army like at Cannae possible. I'd give my left pinky for that :).

[The Soldier]

6 minutes ago, Koro said:

I'd vote for Rome, yet again. The game will need some sort of collision system with a "squeeze" in order to make encircling an enemy army like at Cannae possible. I'd give my left pinky for that :).

More mediev-!

Well, it's not medieval, but it involves, stabby, so I approve.

34 minutes ago, A. P. Hill said:

Recreating history can be just as enjoyable.  If it doesn't fit your play style then go find a game that will. 

Don't act like you own the Ultimate General series.  Seriously, you're sounding more and more haughty every time you make a post, like you're superior or something.

[Col_Kelly]

Regardless of that I'm pretty sure the team will capitalize on musket/rifle warfare otherwise it'd be too big of a leap. I agree that it'd be cool to have swords and shields but all the effort they'd have to invest in rebuilding the combat system could not be used on the addition of extra features. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

2 hours ago, Col_Kelly said:

You mean the war of French assistance ? I'd be ok with that

The war of 1812 is a bit lacking in terms of large size engagements though.

So, in France, you call both WWI and WWII -- oh, and the Cold War -- the 'Wars of American Aid"? 

Lafayette, we have come. Twice. 

[Col_Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Andre Bolkonsky said:

So, in France, you call both WWI and WWII the 'Wars of American Aid"

Lafayette, we have come. Twice. 

Bah, it was just a flesh wound, we were doing fine I swear  

Joking ofc, the debt is fully repaid. It's just that when we achieve something we make sure everyone hears about it. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

So this man was lying? Good to know. 

Fake news strikes again. 

[Col_Kelly]

Yeah obvious montage from german propagandists, just like this one

[srgoens]

Maybe some Fredrick the Great? Or maybe select battles of the Hundred Year War? 

[A. P. Hill]

Perhaps I need to borrow Andre's picture for a reply to ya eh "the soldier"?  

 

[sonnypemberton]

9 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Perhaps I'm crazy, but I think a War of 1812 or Revolutionary War campaign would be fantastic! I mean, the mechanics could practically remain the same, and the same kind of linear campaign system would work. Leading George Washington, or Charles Cornwallis as they fight across America... It could be pretty awesome.

+1 (or10)

[The Soldier]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

Perhaps I need to borrow Andre's picture for a reply to ya eh "the soldier"?  

Maybe that'll be your face after I'm done with your arrogance.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Let's keep it friendly, gentlemen. 

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, The Soldier said:

Maybe that'll be your face after I'm done with your arrogance.

  !

[Fred Sanford]

Getting back to the subject of the thread, and keeping it historical and contemporaneous with the ACW, I think the Franco-Prussian War, Crimean War, Wars of Italian Independence and Austro-Prussian War are all under-represented in game form, and could be modeled readily using the UG system.  Also they'd feature "real" shock cavalry units.  So everyone can be happy!  No fighting in the war room, gentlemen!

Edited March 29, 2017 by Fred Sanford