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 3rd 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
Post a Comment