Coming next

[Bob johnson]

What are you going to do next? I was thinking you should go and make a World War Two game called Ultimate General: World War II which is kind of like the same setup as Ultimate General: Civil War.

[CSX4451]

I think with the type of fighting and combat that occurred in the pacific that this gameplay could be tweaked to accommodate a really nice WW2 Pacfic War game. 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

No. 

This engine and this programming is scaled for Linear Combat. Whatever is next, undoubtably, will be in that genre. 

[OlavDeng2]

Im hoping for napoleon next my self.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Just now, OlavDeng2 said:

Im hoping for napoleon next my self.

Me too. I didn't get this internet handle by accident. 

[_Masterviolin]

I demand Ultimate General: Austerlitz or I will protest outside the GameLabs office

[Andre Bolkonsky]

29 minutes ago, _Masterviolin said:

I demand Ultimate General: Austerlitz or I will protest outside the GameLabs office

I'd put my money on Borodino using Stern reasoning. The GameLabs offices are closer to Borodino than Austerlitz, after all. 

[A. P. Hill]

2 hours ago, OlavDeng2 said:

Im hoping for napoleon next my self.

Dear Gawd.

Don't you think that historical era has been done to death already?

[Zuljin]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

Dear Gawd.

Don't you think that historical era has been done to death already?

I think franco prussian war or the chrimean war would be interesting.

I also have a soft spot for the 1898 spanish american war. Though its probably better suited to the naval side.

That being said the American civil war still has scope for expansion and id pay full money again for a dynamic campaign.

Having all the historic battles joined by potential/alternate battles to form a branching tree might be interesting.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

1 hour ago, A. P. Hill said:

Dear Gawd.

Don't you think that historical era has been done to death already?

The day after a moratorium is declared on WWII games, you can begin proceedings against the Corsican Ogre. Not until. 

[Hobo]

Don't care the theater as long as they make the transition to Dynamic campaigns.  That would truly make it ULTIMATE.

[Gmoney7447]

A revolutionary war maybe? The brits will obviously have more supplies but the Americans have greater morale? And if you mess up as America you get less French support? 

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

If we take a look at it, there are some wars the game engine would be able to display correctly: Of course the Napoleonic Wars (loads of DLCs here), the Seven Years War (american theatre of war DLC?), the Amercian Revolutionary War, the German Unification Wars (probably easier to do because of similar weapons and tactics as in CV). Also, a far shot but possible, Thirty Years War and the various wars of Louis XIV. of France as also the Boshin War in Japan.

[veji1]

Indeed this engine is made for linear combat, so it probably cannot really work well before 1660/1680 and after 1880.. That's still a good 200 years worth of good stuff !

[Fred Sanford]

Considering the units created by the player in UG:CW are fictionalized, but resemble historical units, I'd like to expand on that concept-  Call it Ultimate General Staff: National Army.

In UGS:NA, the player is the Chief of Staff/Head of the Army (or really a series of these fellows) for a particular nation.  US, UK, France, Prussia/Germany, Russia, A-H, Italy mainly (or their precursor minor countries/colonies- in these cases a "War of Independence" or "War of Unification" would be a major early milestone/requirement).  The game would last for say 100-150 years in annual turns during peacetime (say 1750-1900 eg).  During peacetime turns, the player gets a budget that he can spend on training units in a standing army, setting up militias/reserves, purchasing weapons, training/promoting officers, all of the management stuff that's analogous to the camp screen now.

Since the player is Army CoS, and not the national ruler, he would have input into some foreign policy decisions (i.e. make recommendations), but for the most part that would be 'over his paygrade'.  Every once in awhile though, war would break out between the player's country and one or more of the others, or even a civil war.  Then the game would generate a series of battles the player would fight through to represent the course of the war in say monthly turns.  There could be multiple wars in the course of a game.

If you are familiar with the naval game Rule the Waves, I'm thinking like this for land combat.

[Jugashvili]

On 6/25/2017 at 10:57 PM, A. P. Hill said:

Dear Gawd.

Don't you think that historical era has been done to death already?

No it hasn't. The only two casual, real-time Napoleonic games I can think of off the top of my head are Napoleon Total War (which was bad) and Cossacks II: Napoleonic Wars, which is really old and had a lot of issues. Other than that there are only turn-based games and obscure, grognard-y niche products (I'm looking at you, Histwar and SoW). Considering the relevance and impact of the Napoleonic Wars (not to mention the wealth of fascinating campaigns and battles) it's amazing that there are so few Napoleonic games out there, and I think Ultimate General could be the first series to do it justice in an accessible and enjoyable manner.

[Dr Meat]

How about American Revolutionary War or Mexican War.

[Dr Meat]

We need a Review of the Grand Army of the Republic in Washington after Richmond. Our General character could either be at the head or in the reviewing stands. Or in Richmond if playing the South. 

[Dr Meat]

We need a balloon Corps in Ultimate General, the Union had one in the CW.

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

I have to admit I would love to play the German Unification Wars in UG. There are almost no games displaying them...

[i64man]

I think the game engine would be great to recreate basically any European conflict in the 19th century. German unification wars, Napoleonic period, Russian wars. Most of the conflict during the period, were pretty much linear formations and cavalry and arty....But let them first finish this game.

[CSX4451]

I would love to see more battles added to the current game... possibly a dynamic campaign having you start as a Colonel and only having control over units you directly command by your rank and let the AI control the strategy / other units. As you promote, your control increases as do the number of troops you command ( Brigade, Division, Corps, General of the Army).

[Major Grigg]

2 hours ago, CSX4451 said:

I would love to see more battles added to the current game... possibly a dynamic campaign having you start as a Colonel and only having control over units you directly command by your rank and let the AI control the strategy / other units. As you promote, your control increases as do the number of troops you command ( Brigade, Division, Corps, General of the Army).

This, I like this. 

[RavenWargaming]

Hi,

I know that I'm new here so my opinion does not count for much but let me say that I am staunchly against dynamic campaigns. Dynamic campaigns always sound like a good idea, but they rarely live up to expectations... and the monotonous assortment of (what amounts to) procedurally generated AI skirmishes will never compare to the satisfaction of experiencing a handcrafted campaign with a multitude of scenarios that allow both for variation in the missions themselves, and branching paths that promote replayability.

Dynamic campaigns can work, but only in the larger context of a game series like Total War, which takes place over hundreds of years and includes elements of diplomacy, economy management, buildings, etc. In other words, the amount of time and resources required to develop the strategy map/campaign elements to support a dynamic campaign would likely be prohibitive, and it's unrealistic to expect that level of development from (what I understand) is a small team with limited resources.

Therefore, I would caution anyone from advocating too loudly for dynamic campaigns - they sound good in theory, but more often than not their implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

Edited July 2, 2017 by RavenWargaming

[Andre Bolkonsky]

On 7/2/2017 at 9:51 AM, RavenWargaming said:

Hi,

I know that I'm new here so my opinion does not count for much but let me say that I am staunchly against dynamic campaigns. Dynamic campaigns always sound like a good idea, but they rarely live up to expectations... and the monotonous assortment of (what amounts to) procedurally generated AI skirmishes will never compare to the satisfaction of experiencing a handcrafted campaign with a multitude of scenarios that allow both for variation in the missions themselves, and branching paths that promote replayability.

Dynamic campaigns can work, but only in the larger context of a game series like Total War, which takes place over hundreds of years and includes elements of diplomacy, economy management, buildings, etc. In other words, the amount of time and resources required to develop the strategy map/campaign elements to support a dynamic campaign would likely be prohibitive, and it's unrealistic to expect that level of development from (what I understand) is a small team with limited resources.

Therefore, I would caution anyone from advocating too loudly for dynamic campaigns - they sound good in theory, but more often than not their implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes, 

The problem with TW is it tends to be OK on the strategy level and OK on the tactical level; but never really shines at any one thing. Better to focus on one genre and make it truly excellent, imho. 

Oh, and welcome! Opinions this well phrased are always appreciated.