Effect of "Rivers" in UGG's Gettysburg Implementation

[David Fair]

Can anyone on the design team explain the effect of the "Rivers" in UGG's Gettysburg?

 

It seems "Rivers" have a profound effect on casualties.

 

While "Rivers" played a role at other Civil War Battlefields most of the water features on the Gettysburg battlefield are not "Rivers" at all.  They are "Runs."  A "Run" is a small creek about 1 meter wide and about 10 centimeters deep.  

 

Images are available on Google for each of the "Runs" on the Gettysburg battlefield.

 

During the battle of Gettysburg most of these "Runs" were dry.  They afforded some cover; but in most cases because the elevation of a "Run" is at the lowest point in the topography's drainage they were not desirable for defensive positions.  The point is that they did not impede advances and were a minor obstacle at Gettysburg.

 

The single exception was Rock Creek which was fordable almost everywhere - and could be crossed in numerous places without getting your feet wet.  

 

While I understand the goal is to give some tactical advantages to the terrain the implementation seems to have way to much of an impact in the examples Nick is posting in his battles with Agrippa, etc..

 

At Antietam the Antietam Creek was wide and deep enough that it could only be forded at a few places; or crossed at one of the three bridges.   If you want Gettysburg to be different from Antietam you might consider tweaking the significance of the "Rivers" in UGG's Gettysburg because they don't represent the battlefield reality credibly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

These small rivers delay movement and reduce cover. Because they are thin creeks their significance is rather small, except when they are near hilly terrain that must be climbed. There they become volley traps if you stand for long.

[Koro]

I haven't noticed rivers doing much either.

You always have a percentage of cover and that's what "matters" and even though the river might reduce it slightly it is not something I have noticed.

[David Fair]

Thanks Nick & Koro,

 

How long does a unit need to stand near a run to be in a "volley trap"?

 

How far does a unit need to be away from a run to avoid being in a "volley trap"?

[Koro]

Not going to speak for Nick but I think in the long term the effect might be noticable as you'll take more damage then you would have otherwise.

[David Fair]

But if this is a game feature shouldn't players know that this advantage/disadvantage exists to understand how to master the game?

 

The only reason I'm asking the question is there are at least two instances in Nick's videos where Nick specifically mentions the advantage/disadvantage of the effects of the "rivers" and the extreme disparity in casualties that can occur in particular situations when crossing these water features.  

 

This seems like a reasonable question and something that should be openly revealed to the community to ensure everyone has a common knowledge base.

 

 

 

Koro, my recollection may be faulty but I think it may have been you that called REB Blunt a cheat when he flanked your army with an off-board move that Nick and his team did not know was possible.

 

Note that this is precisely what players are complaining about - the fact that memorizing the terrain and its non-obvious effects unbalance the game play.  

 

Is mastering UGG Gettysburg really about memorizing the precise pixels where advantages lie hidden in the map?

 

If so then this is about rote memory of terrain rather than strategy.

 

It seems to me this is another one of these situations where an undocumented game feature gives players an advantage because they don't understand the effects of specific topography.

 

IMHO a topography anomaly is as much of a "cheat" as off-board movement.  

 

But this is just my humble opinion...and your opinion may differ.  

[Koro]

Not the same issue.

 

It's not "hidden" here in the same way, your cover percentage still shows that you can take in to account.

 

His strategy was a game-breaking cheat, this hardly is.

[David Fair]

Koro,

 

Your statement may not be correct.  If the game adjusts the volley's incomming and/or outgoing effectiveness due to the time and proximity to a river, the effect is not necessarily reflected in the "cover percentage" as you've stated above.  Thus this feature is just as undocumented as the off-board movement cheat.  

 

While you may see these differently they are both undocumented game features that impact play.  

You may find your distinction compelling - but I'm not convinced at all by your argument.  An undocumented game cheat is what it is.

 

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

 

But...

 

While I have the utmost respect for you as a player there is the potential that even an experienced player may unintentionally contort the design facts.

 

I wouldn't be asking the question if Nick didn't make the same statement regarding the effect of "rivers" in two of his game videos.

 

It is not clear if the effects of a river are reflected in the "cover percentage" as you've stated above; which is why I asked the design team to respond to the question in the first place.  It could be there is an algorithm that increases the kill percentage independently of the cover percentage.

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken Koro but I don't believe you are a member of the design team.  Is this correct?

 

I'm honestly interested in the design facts regarding these water features.  

 

The design team is the only credible source to respond to this question.

[David Fair]

Nick,

 

Can you please clarify your statement above regarding Rivers, "except when they are near hilly terrain that must be climbed. There they become volley traps if you stand for long."

 

Can you give a couple of examples of the hilly terrain on the map that will make the River a "volley trap?"

 

How long is too long to stand by a "River?"

[Nick Thomadis]

Nick,

 

Can you please clarify your statement above regarding Rivers, "except when they are near hilly terrain that must be climbed. There they become volley traps if you stand for long."

 

Can you give a couple of examples of the hilly terrain on the map that will make the River a "volley trap?"

 

How long is too long to stand by a "River?"

Standing on the creeks of McPherson, Culp's Hill, Devil's Den, for example you decrease your cover by a narrow but significant % that makes difference in losses.

Just for a note, in the next game we make, there will be large rivers that can be passed only by a bridge.

[Koro]

I apologize if I was too sure of myself.. it seems like I was on the right track though, given Nick's response. 

[Koro]

Oh, and it seems the first new feature of the new game has been unofficially announced

[David Fair]

Nick,

 

What about the fords at Antietam Creek and also on the Potomac River?

 

On Antietam Creek there were:

1)  two fords south of the Upper Bridge.

2) one ford above and one ford below the Burnside Bridge

3) and Snavely's Ford further south (also below the Burnside Bridge).

 

On the Potomac Boteler's Ford and White's Ford.

[Nick Thomadis]

There will be trespassable water passages for creeks but the large river sections will be non trespassable.

[David Fair]

Lee withdrew over the Potomac after the battle of Antietam at Boteler's Ford.  The Shepherdstown Bridge had been destroyed. 

 

Note: If forced north he could also have used Shepherds Ford, located between the gap in Shephers Island in the Potomac River.

 

The location of both of these fords and the destroyed bridge at Shepherdstown may be beyond the scope of your Antietam maps.

[michaelsmithern]

Standing on the creeks of McPherson, Culp's Hill, Devil's Den, for example you decrease your cover by a narrow but significant % that makes difference in losses.

Just for a note, in the next game we make, there will be large rivers that can be passed only by a bridge.

oh man I cannot wait, you're giving bridges a use in the next game, but I wonder where this next game could be. I know you want to do something with Antietam, but a short 13 hour battle, while yes the bloodiest, doesn't stand up to the three day engagement of Gettysburg, although I feel a good way to counter resolve this would be to make it the whole Maryland campaign, or just take the skirmishes that happened around and in Sharpsburg