I'd abandon Creative Assembly for this company if this game allowed me to conquer the world on a global campaign map

@k3rmit568

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm pretty pissed that they've gotten rid of naval combat in recent games, so this looks like a solid way to scratch that itch. It'd be cool if we could see this sort of combined land and sea combat in Total War, but CA's salivating over how much money they can squeeze out of the Warhammer fandom so I doubt we'll ever see naval again, much less anything as cool as this.

@gabrielhoffman4897

4 жыл бұрын

MAYBE THEY WILL!!! CHECK THSI OUT www.aos.ultimateadmiral.com/

@TheRespectedMan

4 жыл бұрын

i already have abandoned creative assembly for game labs

It looks fun, but I got to say that I'm not sold on the 3D graphics. One of the things that made the previous games so appealing to me was the 2D grapics which, in my opinion, added to the immersion of being a commander looking at a map. It will be interesting to see the game develop over time.

@alcoolamus4208

4 жыл бұрын

3D allows for naval battles that would look silly af in 2D I think

@bayan7138

4 жыл бұрын

Dont think its that bad, but defiantly different id say, always thought this series would stick with 2d, but its still in development so give them some time and maybe you will like it a bit more!

@TheRespectedMan

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, however, this is mainly about naval battles and so 3D is more fitting. But if they make another ultimate general game i hope it's 2D

@gregoryberrycone

4 жыл бұрын

probably won't run on my potatoe comp any more. oh well

This game was designed by the guy who made the darthmods for the Total War games....right?

@Rex1987

4 жыл бұрын

yep pretty cool fact.

@Rex1987

4 жыл бұрын

yep pretty cool fact.

See my reply to JaM below for comments. The land battles need work in terms of unit scaling and visual representation of formations. They look like like Civil War skirmish lines then 18th century line infantry.

another batch of feedback: Unit scale is off... if these units are supposed to represent Company, they are way too big... Typical Infantry company was 95-110 men(85-100 men, 10 officers, NCO, drummers,fifers etc plus sometimes additional noncombatants), yet units in the game are 200men strong.. they are definitely not a Battalion size (they are visibly called companies), which was typically 4-8 companies strong. Same thing for Colonial Militia, 275 men, that's not a company.. that's more like under-strength battalion... As mentioned before, there were no Grenadier Regiments in British army of that era... so 4th Grenadier 2nd company is completely illogical unit. British army had single Regiment that got name Grenadier Regiment - it was Foot Guards which was renamed to Grenadier Regiment of Food Guard for their bravery at battle of Waterloo in 1815..

@ericboyle8296

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly the unit designations are confusing. Is that the Grenadier company of the 4th regiment? If so too large. They also list the Grenadiers as numbered companies which is confusing. Also the formations are much too loose. They look like skirmish lines. That may be ok for the militia but not the British regulars. This has been mentioned on the GL forums as well.

I have been on Bunker Hill countless times. If you get a chance go do it! We lost the battle but won the war because it tromatized the entire British high command. It is Breads Hill!

@tom02061997

4 жыл бұрын

I dont think you traumatized the british high command with 1 battle. The best military in the world.

2,337 british casualties 389 missing. Heroic Victory!

In my opinion they have to redesign some basic points of the battles like dead bodies, for example If i kill 100 soldiers i'd like to see those bodies on the battlefield and not just numbers. Another problem is the IA, when you're firing the enemy and the enemy is looking to the other side like nothing happens. This game has lot of potential, i will check future updates.

Yay! Land battles!

my main problem is the placebo that they use in the campaign scaling the number of troops.

@StenKilla

4 жыл бұрын

But otherwise the maps would have to be a lot bigger. They did the same thing in Civil war and I was ok with it

@jcamo10zuekamo

4 жыл бұрын

@@StenKilla by scaling I mean the change in the number of troops depending the mean of troops per brigade.

I like the addition of friendly fire, support from the ships, and capturing enemy guns - these are long-overdue features. The unit formations drive me a little crazy. As others have noted, the British regular foot infantry would be in tight, crisp formations, possibly firing by platoon/company and certainly firing more quickly than the American militia. Rate of fire was critical during this period of warfare and it was one of the major advantages of the British army and navy. The unit sizes and names are also quite odd - companies at the time were rarely larger than 70-80 men, and more likely to be 30-50 men. They were organized into regiments or battalions of about ten companies, and those units were the maneuver units. Grenadier and Light companies were often formed into their own battalions and were separate maneuver units. Thus neither the size nor the names of the units make sense for this battle.

@CallsignArchangel

4 жыл бұрын

Friendly fire exists in ugcw. Get close to enemy infantry and you'll see your men get shot just the same.

Pretty cool video! I dont know if the enemy ships are moving but at the end the single british unit could come from one of the two ships behind you. If you have a look at the map.

omg. I'm so happy. I want this

Bunker Hill being the first set-piece battle. Lexington / Concord would be a series of meeting engagements between large numbers of local militia and eventually the majority of the British garrison at Boston. Do not fall foul of the myth that Lexington / Concord was not a major engagement.

This game has a lot of potential. I do hope this helps out against other game rts companies that have kind of a monopoly on this genre (huhuh Total War huhuhu).

Looked pretty good.

In the Previous game you couldn t capture the guns and use them in "combat" but it is good and amazing that u can do so now in this one, however the friendly fire though is gonna be bad and you will have micro-mange a lot more than, before here though. but I also love how the flag goes down in this, would have been cool if the enemy did rout, but ralied and got back/picked up the flag, but nonetheless it looks pretty amazing game so far.

I always discover great games by watching your videos! Thank you Sir!

Hey there. Is word 'Bunker' go from the battle of this hill?

I loved UGCW and I wish Game Labs every success, but I can't help feeling that switching to full 3D is an overreach. I'm wary of them getting stuck in the weeds with animations, collisions, all of that guff. Now they're up against Creative Assembly, even if they don't think they are, and people will compare them to that. Sprites are easier to abstract. IDK, I was fine with sprites and a roughly top-down camera. This feels like a backward step from UGCW. What do you guys think?

@TheRespectedMan

4 жыл бұрын

They went for the 3D due to the naval aspect of this game. You're exaggerating

I'm more excited for Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts tbh but i'll being playing this while i wait

@thehistoricalgamer

4 жыл бұрын

Me too actually.

@ognoders

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehistoricalgamer 1860-1920 is my dream time period I've been waiting for another gunpowder total war but i think the trend for them is back to hack and slash. its driving me buggy.

@ognoders

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehistoricalgamer Also thanks for taking the time to reply.

@asheer9114

4 жыл бұрын

I hope that Dreadnoughts will have some Land combat as well. 🤔

@ognoders

4 жыл бұрын

@@asheer9114 nope just sea battles

Looks awesome, not keen on the game being primarily naval based though. Land battle are deffo the more exciting to play

I'm a little confused by the Brits' naval casualties there. How did 1400+ sailors go down; almost twice as much as redcoat infantry? Even if the Royal Marines were counted as naval personnel (seems reasonable), it still seems way off. There were only a couple of marine units (1st & 2nd? were there others?). Maybe the Yankee artillery on the hill was firing at ships the whole time and it just wasn't obvious during the battle? If that's the case, still weird; one would think heavy/accurate enough fire to cause that many casualties would also have heavily damaged and/or sunk some of the lighter vessels.

take my money

DREADNAUGHTS IS AVAILABLE YESSSSS

Hope they strengthen the AI

In UGCW you just captured the guns themselves for use in the next battle like with the firearms ect.

@thehistoricalgamer

4 жыл бұрын

Right, but captured guns were regularly used against their former owners and it was often a huge impact on a battle so the fact UGCW lacked that always felt, like it was missing something.

Send in the A-10 warthog

@thehistoricalgamer

4 жыл бұрын

*bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* - The Royal Navy burns and disintegrates under a wave of 30mm cannon shells.

I’m enjoying your game vids and your reactions and comments... at times you sound like a Histericalgamer 😁

You’re wrong. They definitely adopted loose files, at latest by the 1777 campaign. Mandated by Howe himself. And it wasn’t just the Light Bobs. It was the line units too. Stop repeating old stereotypes and do some research.

@KingdomEnfilade

4 жыл бұрын

It's annoying that people still think the Brits operated in stiff European formations, when they pioneered loose files and simplified lines. The Americans spent the war trying to imitate the British, not the other way around!

wait until the 6th game or so when they finally sit down and consolidate ideas into a full game instead of saying "all done!" when a grouping of half baked ideas are thrown into an alpha based upon the previous game

The friendly firing is unrealistic. I can see it happening for a volley, maybe two but after that, what soldier would repeatedly look down their sights, see friendly troops and then fire? Hopefully that gets fixed.

@robertlloyd9654

4 жыл бұрын

In reality the amount of smoke on a battlefield would make target identification extremely hard, its why discipline and planning was so important, often all you had to go by was the sound of the drums and maybe the flags if you were close enough.

Thanks! 😊☕

This looks good, would be interested to know if you can also play as the British?

@ericboyle8296

4 жыл бұрын

Yes you can. The game will have a campaign as a British officer as well as the US side.

Press p for pause

for some reason "The whites in theyr eyes" its not matching the Era and continent :D Battle of Sevastopol :P Count or prince what ever Suvorov

i dont know.. devs should read more about 18.century combat... these formations are way too loose... soldiers were supposed to stand SHOULDER TO SHOULDER.... not like this.... British Line should be practically perfect straight tripple line and American Militia formations should look like British look right now...... Also, there were no 2nd companies of Grenadiers in British army...... Grenadiers were ALWAYS 1st Company.... second company were Fusiliers and tenth company were Light Infantry...

@thehistoricalgamer

4 жыл бұрын

British soldiers look pretty close to shoulder to shoulder, I assume the less tight formations of the American's is meant to represent the difference in discipline and training, that's likely largely overstated but I'm guessing that's the design choice.

@JaM-R2TR4

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehistoricalgamer its very bad design choice, considering naval aspect of this game is perfect, but land battles look very bad because of this..

@thehistoricalgamer

4 жыл бұрын

We'll see how this develops. Given the name and the focus of the other scenarios (and the name of the game), I think the main focus of this game is Naval Battles with landing parties in a Horatio Hornblower like scheme, so probably more skirmishing and coastal raids for land battles, I don't think they'll be fighting Waterloo or Monmouth as part of this game, so the looser formations make sense if you're talking sailors and marines, that said Bunker Hill as you point out, is problematic because it's closer to a traditional, set piece, land battle.

@JaM-R2TR4

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehistoricalgamer thing is, for 18.century weapons, loose formation makes absolutely no sense. Muskets were used in concentration, therefore shoulder to shoulder formation was a must, to achieve highest saturation with bullets per frontage. Plus, there is a whole another level in combat psychology where people tend to group closely together against unseen danger - musketry produced a lot of smoke, so soldiers usually rarely even saw their enemy after first salvo.. and of course there is another reason, where officers didnt want to allow such open formation, because it was impossible to control it in battle. so even militia units during war for independence was kept in tight formations, so it could be controlled in battle...

@JaM-R2TR4

4 жыл бұрын

@@thehistoricalgamer oh and of course - typically it was quite problematic for second and third rank to fire, so in open formation like they have in game, there would be an insane amount of friendly fire happening all the time... main reason why ranks were so close together was to make sure musket barrels are not pointed to heads of men in front ranks (British infantry had ranks 0.6m apart, French just 0.3m)..... usually ranks were quite close, so flints would not ignite the powder way too close to heads of men in front rank.... so besides it looks bad, its quite unrealistic having it like this..

already 5 mins into it we can see a reoccuring problem whit ultimate series the LOS......

I mean, why would I want this over say Empire Total War or Napoleon Total War? It just seems like a lesser version of those.

@filipzietek5146

4 жыл бұрын

Because they are both parody of 18/19th century warfare? This is mainly a naval warfare game with limited amphobious operations. I mean why would anyone interested in history play total war?

@Rex1987

4 жыл бұрын

because current total war games don't have naval battles at all. Plus this has a lot of features that total war doesn't have. Like the option to buy better weapons for individual units or as shown the option to capture artillery

As to the game it should not have friendly fire. To hard to control that

The continental flag is not correct :( sorry just pickey. It's the reenactor in me.

Age of sail.. and it gives you a land battle..sighs..I wont be purchasing if this is the basis of this game.

@Rex1987

4 жыл бұрын

it has BOTH land battles and naval battles which i think is a cool idea and is better than the current total war games.