Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Ultimate General: Civil War

Jugashvili

管官的官
Patron
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,608
Location
Georgia, Asia
Codex 2013


This looks very good. I really like the idea of being able to zoom in and out to manage battles at different command levels. It's a bit unfortunate that they're still trying to pander to the American market as I think it would have been more interesting with a "proper" war (Silesian wars would have been nice!), but good horse and musket games are so few and far between I'll take anything.
 

AwesomeButton

Proud owner of BG 3: Day of Swen's Tentacle
Patron
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
16,154
Location
At large
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath
Nice! Sanity has returned. I know they will get to the Napoleonic period eventually. Actually the later the better, their technology will be more advanced.
 

Sinilevä

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jun 9, 2019
Messages
899
Location
Eurofagistan
Strap Yourselves In
Nice! Sanity has returned. I know they will get to the Napoleonic period eventually. Actually the later the better, their technology will be more advanced.
Would be nice to see a game about the Thirty Years' War for a change. This period gets always ignored for some reason. There are hardly any games, except maybe Cossacks: European Wars.
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
19,114
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
Nice! Sanity has returned. I know they will get to the Napoleonic period eventually. Actually the later the better, their technology will be more advanced.
Would be nice to see a game about the Thirty Years' War for a change. This period gets always ignored for some reason. There are hardly any games, except maybe Cossacks: European Wars.
Pike & Shot.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
This looks very good. I really like the idea of being able to zoom in and out to manage battles at different command levels. It's a bit unfortunate that they're still trying to pander to the American market as I think it would have been more interesting with a "proper" war (Silesian wars would have been nice!), but good horse and musket games are so few and far between I'll take anything.

Tbh I don't understand why they don't do 7 years war because that was actually the real "first world war", and leads to so many natural addons (the American War of Independence is one)

American War of Independence is gonna be boring as fuck. The USA loses almost any battle until they almost win Bunker Hill and the Brits pull out because the USA is getting stronger, not weaker.

But it seems they want to add non-linear elements this time, i.e a basic campaign layer. The ACW game was good but the linearity and pointlessness had killed my inner child long before I reached the end of the war.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I think American Civil War and American Revolution are both good choices for a small studio like theirs that is still experimenting with new gameplay ideas and trying to implement new features one at a time, because they're wars of limited scale and therefore much easier to work with than something larger.

You only have two factions and a limited geographic area. It's far easier to work with that when you have to create new campaign gameplay systems, dynamic zoom-in-and-out battles, an AI that can handle all of that, etc.
Than when you take a much larger war with many participants such as the 7 Years War where you'd also have to implement a diplomacy system on top of everything else, write an AI that can handle different factions on the campaign map all with different stances towards each other (ally, neutral, enemy), etc.
 

Jugashvili

管官的官
Patron
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,608
Location
Georgia, Asia
Codex 2013
This looks very good. I really like the idea of being able to zoom in and out to manage battles at different command levels. It's a bit unfortunate that they're still trying to pander to the American market as I think it would have been more interesting with a "proper" war (Silesian wars would have been nice!), but good horse and musket games are so few and far between I'll take anything.

Tbh I don't understand why they don't do 7 years war because that was actually the real "first world war", and leads to so many natural addons (the American War of Independence is one)

American War of Independence is gonna be boring as fuck. The USA loses almost any battle until they almost win Bunker Hill and the Brits pull out because the USA is getting stronger, not weaker.

But it seems they want to add non-linear elements this time, i.e a basic campaign layer. The ACW game was good but the linearity and pointlessness had killed my inner child long before I reached the end of the war.

Yup, also, as in the ACW, the AWI provides a "cavalry-poor" game which severely limits tactical options, opportunities for exploitation, etc. I agree, btw, the linearity and level-scaling in UG:CW are utterly soul-crushing. In retrospect I feel another in-depth standalone look at a single battle with a decision tree that opens what-if scenarios, like the Gettysburg game, would have been better.

I think American Civil War and American Revolution are both good choices for a small studio like theirs that is still experimenting with new gameplay ideas and trying to implement new features one at a time, because they're wars of limited scale and therefore much easier to work with than something larger.

You only have two factions and a limited geographic area. It's far easier to work with that when you have to create new campaign gameplay systems, dynamic zoom-in-and-out battles, an AI that can handle all of that, etc.
Than when you take a much larger war with many participants such as the 7 Years War where you'd also have to implement a diplomacy system on top of everything else, write an AI that can handle different factions on the campaign map all with different stances towards each other (ally, neutral, enemy), etc.

If they did the Seven Years War or the War of Austrian Succession I'd be a happy camper, but the reason I suggested the Silesian wars is that they could start with a very basic 2-faction approach (the classic Prussia vs. Austria) and gradually add more theaters. You could get the same 2-faction approach but much larger and more interesting battles with cavalry and artillery on a grand scale. Honestly, given a choice would you prefer to-refight Mollwitz, Kolin and Hohenfriedberg or the battles of Bumfuck Creek, Podunk Courthouse and Fort Nowhere? Not to mention the decisive Brawl of Springfield Tavern, kek.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
If they did the Seven Years War or the War of Austrian Succession I'd be a happy camper, but the reason I suggested the Silesian wars is that they could start with a very basic 2-faction approach (the classic Prussia vs. Austria) and gradually add more theaters. You could get the same 2-faction approach but much larger and more interesting battles with cavalry and artillery on a grand scale. Honestly, given a choice would you prefer to-refight Mollwitz, Kolin and Hohenfriedberg or the battles of Bumfuck Creek, Podunk Courthouse and Fort Nowhere? Not to mention the decisive Brawl of Springfield Tavern, kek.

True, you could start out small there and expand the scenario with DLCs.
And yes, Hohenfriedberg is a much more fun battle than... pretty much anything in the Revolutionary war.

 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
I think American Civil War and American Revolution are both good choices for a small studio like theirs that is still experimenting with new gameplay ideas and trying to implement new features one at a time, because they're wars of limited scale and therefore much easier to work with than something larger.

You only have two factions and a limited geographic area. It's far easier to work with that when you have to create new campaign gameplay systems, dynamic zoom-in-and-out battles, an AI that can handle all of that, etc.
Than when you take a much larger war with many participants such as the 7 Years War where you'd also have to implement a diplomacy system on top of everything else, write an AI that can handle different factions on the campaign map all with different stances towards each other (ally, neutral, enemy), etc.

Sorry, but no. The War of Independence was mainly a war of attrition and of asymmetric warfare.

It was almost ended during a chaotic siege of Boston that brought the besieging Americans to the brink of collapse. The Brits had smaller numbers of highly trained infantry and won practically every engagement, they took major cities like New York with ease but could not prevent the Americans from controlling most of the territory. It also lead to one of the most absurd campaigns in all history of warfare. In order to mount more numbers the Brits had bought large quantities of Germans to Canada and marched this army southwards through completely inaccessible territory in order to reach the Hudson river. Of course they never got there. Thousands of Germans in rank and file - who did not speak 1 word of English or French, without maps or realistic objectives - lingered in Canadian forests. Stories were born like the headless Hessian. This impossible to represent in a game.
 

Sranchammer

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
20,399
Location
Former Confederate States of America
Sorry, but no. The War of Independence was mainly a war of attrition and of asymmetric warfare.

It was almost ended during a chaotic siege of Boston that brought the besieging Americans to the brink of collapse. The Brits had smaller numbers of highly trained infantry and won practically every engagement, they took major cities like New York with ease but could not prevent the Americans from controlling most of the territory. It also lead to one of the most absurd campaigns in all history of warfare. In order to mount more numbers the Brits had bought large quantities of Germans and marched this army through completely inaccessible territory in Canada in order to reach the Hudson river. Of course they never got there. Thousands of Germans in rank and file - who did not speak 1 word of English or French, without maps or realistic pbjectives - lingered in Canadian forests. Stories were born like the headless Hessian. This impossible to represent in a game.
I believe it is impossible to simulate any conflict where Germans are involved. Just too many variables
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
Honestly, given a choice would you prefer to-refight Mollwitz, Kolin and Hohenfriedberg or the battles of Bumfuck Creek, Podunk Courthouse and Fort Nowhere? Not to mention the decisive Brawl of Springfield Tavern, kek.

In particular you wonder how they are gonna simulate "battles" that were fought in massive, thick forests. Unless they make trees transparent you would not see anything.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Honestly, given a choice would you prefer to-refight Mollwitz, Kolin and Hohenfriedberg or the battles of Bumfuck Creek, Podunk Courthouse and Fort Nowhere? Not to mention the decisive Brawl of Springfield Tavern, kek.

In particular you wonder how they are gonna simulate "battles" that were fought in massive, thick forests. Unless they make trees transparent you would not see anything.

Probably the same way they did in Civil War: make unit graphics display above the terrain as long as they're either your own units, or spotted by your own units.
 

Burning Bridges

Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
27,562
Location
Tampon Bay
The problem is when there were only forests. Those were not not civilized landscapes like in Europe or late 19th century.
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,662
I love the era but agree with others that it's a weird choice for line-order battling. The War for Independence was mostly guerilla fighting and very small battles until toward the end. Washington crossing the Delaware and bushwacking the German mercenaries is the big to-do that really turned the war. All alongside that is Washington basically running disinformation on the enemy at a strategic level. Perhaps that's part of it, that they're developing more 'strat-level' tools to get away from the above-mentioned linearity. A game where you had to play as Washington and go around recruiting men, dealing with horrible budget issues, and just playing survival in the forest would provide an interesting side-dynamic to the line battles.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom