Ultimate General: The Battle of Gettysburg


Ultimate General: Gettysburg

This ultimate article concludes Awkward Mixture's series on Ultimate General: Civil War and Gettysburg.

The goal of this final article is to unveil a few remaining absurdities, annoyances and minor alterations, consider five distinct differences between the Battle of Gettysburg in UG: Gettysburg and UG: Civil War, before concluding with specific examples and a terminal thoughts.

An absurdity: The men constantly cry “Kill them all!” so often, I wanted to wad my ears with paper. It's not only repetitive, but barbaric, so it's astonishing this audio agony passed through development without someone recognizing its irrelevance.

An irritant: Unlike Gettysburg, the artillery ranges in Civil War are difficult to see. Also, the player can't choose which ammunition type (solid shot, shell and canister) they want the artillery to use. Batteries end up wasting an unnecessary volume of supplies, or the player micromanages his artillery, ceaselessly ordering them to cease and resume fire as needed.

An inanity: The AI controlled enemy never surrenders unless surrounded. I once reduced a 1,500 man brigade to 136 soldiers and yet they fought on, deterring my 2,000 man brigade.

An annoying alteration: In Gettysburg, the player clicked on a brigade and dragged their mouse to determine movement. The path determined by the player stayed on the screen. In CW, the player can click or drag, but in either case their action leaves no residual path. The player can only see one brigade's path at a time by hovering over the unit. I understand the developer is trying to reduce the clutter of Gettysburg, but their solution solved one problem but created one that is worse. The best solution: include a button which can be pressed to reveal all the paths!
A minor modification, leading to a reduction in realism: In Gettysburg, a corps commander can only improve the morale and condition of brigades in his corps. In CW, any brigade can be refreshed by any corps commander.

An improvement: CW introduces skirmishers, allowing any infantry brigade to detach a small percentage of its soldiers to scout or delay the enemy. This is the single best improvement of CW, but also alters the feel, as it necessitates more micromanagement (This is not a complaint).

The other major differences inherent in the two variations of the Battle of Gettysburg have already been detailed for CW: no topographic map, an uncertain timer, no choices between sections. Other features are similarly small: Gettysburg contains no fortified areas, while CW includes a few. Cover in Gettysburg is never as effective as CW's. In the original it's rare to discover a location with a cover value over 75%, while the sequel is covered in forests valued above 80%. Gettysburg features a cartoony aesthetic, appearing more like an artist's rendition of a map, while CW seeks to render its environment realistically. And unsurprisingly (considering everything that's already been mentioned) Civil War's version of the Battle of Gettysburg includes few victory spots.
Here are the five big differences.
Artillery brigades in Gettysburg function like a combination of cannon and mine field. They're deadly with shells, sure, but devastating with canister. Charging an isolated battery with a healthy infantry brigade isn't a risk, but assured death. The attacker is likely to destroy the battery, but suffer such unimaginable damage in morale and manpower as to be rendered useless for the remainder of the section, if not the battle. Artillery brigades in Civil War, dangerous while attached to an infantry brigade, are weak when alone, as they should be.

In Civil War, infantry brigades are nimble, and maneuver precisely. In Gettysburg they feel like massive battleships. They trudge along, and one doesn't expect any brigade to perform singularly. Instead, Gettysburg functions best by forming battle lines, and maintaining them. Civil War seems to be about throwing brigades at the enemy, or them throwing theirs at you, but in Gettysburg it feels like a team sport, a joint effort.

Gettysburg's reliance on battle lines is enforced by its morale and condition (along with a better AI), two essential gauges for how a brigade is performing. Condition and morale are like the oil and gasoline in a car. In Gettysburg, these two measurements are reduced swiftly and recharge slowly. A commander might wish to rush a new brigade to the front line as it reinforces the field, but they'll discover the maneuver is useless when it arrives exhausted. Particularly noticeable, is the exhaustion of artillery brigades from continued firing. In Civil War exhausting a brigade requires effort, and they recover quickly. Firing seems to offer an insignificant condition, and an artillery brigade is able to maintain a continuous barrage. Instead, the new feature, supply, is often the limiting resource.

Generals offer a greater impact in Gettysburg, because they are necessary to reinvigorate despairing brigades. Without them, both improvements to morale and condition are sluggish. And, a generals ability to assist only his own corps reinforces the importance of corps concentration and maintaining battle lines

Gettysburg values how the battle is conducted. Victory locations offer points which are collected, while the casualties incurred in their acquisition are tabulated. Casualties matter for the end of Gettysburg, because instead of win or loss, Gettysburg displays a victory point value, a causality value, and with a brief description of the outcome. Even Civil War's conclusion after the final Battle of Richmond doesn't include an indepth analysis of the campaign.
Before the “in conclusion” here are some final examples from Civil War's variation of Gettysburg. Rest assured, these descriptions do not nearly replicate Gettysburg's.

On the first day, the Union stood strong and trounced the Rebels at McPherson's Ridge. But on the second day, they involuntarily retreated to Cemetery Hill, Cemetery Ridge, and Culp's Hill.

On the second day, fighting the Culp's Hill section, I literally didn't supply any orders to my men. Two, two-thousand and five hundred men brigades (along an artillery brigade or two) defeated the entire Rebel attack.

When the Confederates attacked Culp's Hill on the 3
rd day of Battle, I gave orders at the beginning, and then no more. I even increased the speed to 3x and went to the bathroom. I returned five minutes to find my men in proper formation.

In conclusion, have I been too tough on Ultimate General: Civil War? In spite of everything I've said, I don't hate Civil War. Rather, I expected too much, hoped for fifteen battles with the scope of Ultimate General: Gettysburg, anticipated improvements. Instead the developers delivered a dull, repetitive, tiresome campaign, when they would have better served their customers by offering another single battle: Chancellorsville, Antietam, or Shiloh, with improvements.

The problems with Civil War are many, some a feature of the new systems the developers added, while others due to alterations implemented. A few developments proved worthwhile, but on the whole, the game suffered. Of all the alterations and additions, two seem particularity worthy of reiteration for the agony they caused.

The worst change is to the difficulty system. Gettysburg included nine different AI personalities, who employed different strategies, and were capable of challenging the player. Civil War, in complete rejection of the developer's thesis on AI difficulty, replaces the old system and implements a new one, where an increased difficulty gives the AI numerical advantages which don't alter the fact that it's as dumb as a bullet.

But the most frustrating change is Civil War's reduction in player choice. The player may be able to build their own army, but they're force to fight through so many overly scripted battles where the director takes the player by the hand at each new sections and says, “Here, do you see this! This is what is supposed to happen next.”

In Gettysburg, every section is a series of choices, of which victory points to secure, and which to relinquish, and every section is concluded with a choice; advance or defend. Civil War is full of false choices, like which named and faced, but totally irrelevant commander would you prefer to hire.

Ultimate General: Civil War is a play, which pretends to grant the player the part of General Robert E. Lee, when it really forces them into the role of Maj. General George Pickett.

Recent:

Relevant:

Comments