Ultimate General: Gettysburg
Last week, Awkward Mixture examined Ultimate General: Civil War's paradoxical relationship with freedom and restriction as relating to crafting the player's army and campaigning. This week's article examines how an unrealistic lack of information and vague goals impede the player's ability to make meaningful decisions in battle.
As already mentioned, the Timer
included in Civil War is a devolution from the one included in
Gettysburg. Its imprecise implications render its purpose
pointless, since one doesn't know if its final toll indicates
conclusion, reinforcement, or relocation.
Let's take a look at the whole map.
Before battle begins in Civil War,
the player should reequip and reinforce their army at the Army Camp
screen. Then they'll arrive at the Battle Map, which offers one
Major battle and up to three Minor battles to choose from. Clicking
on a battlefield induces Civil War to display a cache of
information: the enemy army strength, their level of training, their
weapon quality, a few irrelevant intercepted messages between enemy
commanders, flavor text about how the two armies came to fight at the
particular location, and the rewards for the three outcomes: Victory,
Draw, and Defeat.
Each battle, regardless of resolution,
provides the player an increase in two of the Civil War's
currencies: Manpower and Money. Money (referred to as gold) is used
to purchase weapons, commanders, and train soldiers. Manpower is
spent to replace casualties or hire new soldiers. The third currency
of Civil War is reputation, which measures the player's
success and is the sole determinant of victory or defeat. If the
player's reputation is reduced to zero then the army is disbanded and
the player loses. At the same time, Reputation can never exceed a
value of one-hundred. If the player has a comfortable cushion of
extra Reputation, they can spend it at the Army Camp to purchase
additional Money, Manpower, Commanders, or weaponry. While at first
this mechanic seems sensible, further reflection reveals that a
player who is doing well enough to spend Reputation, doesn't need the
rewards it offers, while a player in a desperate situation won't have
any to waste.
In relation to battles, Victory always
increases the Commander's reputation, and Defeat always reduces it,
while the reward from a Draw differs depending on the historical
expectations of the battlefield. Some Draws reward the player with
Reputation, while others reduce it.
Once a battle is chosen, the player
access the deployment screen, which includes a map of the battlefield
framed by historical flavor text on the left side and the player's
corps on the right. The map is surprisingly lacking in information,
with a few arrows (blue for Union, red for Confederate) indicating
the presumed path of movement. The only interaction the map allows,
is with a limited number of predetermined boxes for deployment.
These boxes provide a vague description of the corps' deployment,
such as “Vanguard” or “Tomorrow's Reinforcements”. The
deployment screen offers no opportunity for the player to devise
their own strategy. Instead it requires the player to mirror
historical deployment exactly. Not only must the player deploy to
paint a historical portrait, but the the map does not include any
indication of goals rendering the deployment pointless. The player
can't even choose which corps to deploy over any other, because the
screen is devoid of relevant information about the enemy army.
Finally, one can't even trust to one's own reinforcements, because
the time and manner of their arrival is enigmatic, failing to display
the manner or time of their arrival.
Even when the player chooses a corps to
deploy, only part of it will be allowed on the field at setup. A
reinforcing corps may be deployed in pieces over the course of an
hour or two in game time, and the player has no choice as to whether
the corps deploys its artillery, cavalry, or infantry first.
Once the player sets up their limited
options as best as they can, the battle finally begins.
Immediately, anyone who has played
Gettysburg notices one irritating difference and one major mistake.
The irritating infraction: the topographic map overlay has been
replaced with a barely perceptible 3D deep visualization. This makes
it difficult for the player to properly position their artillery and
infantry.
Of more significance is the change to
the victory locations. In Civil War: Gettysburg, these
were highlighted by a point value (with points awarded to the holder
at the end of the section), while Civil War marks them with a
flag indicating the location's current occupier. Since Gettysburg
was a single battle, the game recorded the player's score over the
course of multiple scenes to evaluate the outcome, while Civil War
doesn't particularly care to develop a nuanced understanding of any
particular battle: only Victory, Draw or Defeat. In contrast,
Gettysburg even cares about casualties. In at least one of
many play-throughs I've achieved the dubious achievement of a Pyrrhic
Victory. This is defined as capturing a significant majority of
victory points, but suffering too many casualties in achieving the
objectives (more on this next week).
In short, the Victory Conditions for
Civil War are unclear. A little box in the top right
describes the conditions for victory or draw, but why, in the Battle
of Chickamunga, does it include two different victory conditions? A
further, minor complaint. Though described by name in the victory
screen, flags on the map include no text indicating which is which.
Worse then the lack of distinction, or
information, about the victory locations, is the lack of impact they
have on any particular battle. Upon completing a section in
Gettysburg, the player is offered two tactical choices
depending on their success or failure at securing the victory
locations. Normally, these two options are as simple as
“aggressively continue the assault”, or “defend the held
position/withdraw to a more defensive location”. Civil War
never offers the player a choice on the battlefield, even at its
Battle of Gettysburg. Victory locations offer no effect on the flow
of the battle, they only its obscure outcome. And because the
battles are not as rooted around these conditions, the sections of
the battle feel less connected, like a poorly knit quilt.
The sections, without the grounding of
victory locations, leave the player bemused about maneuvering, where
to defend and where to assault. Often, I sent soldiers to attack a
fortified position across open terrain without understanding how it
featured in the larger battle, and as a result I felt as if the
computer was outwitting me strategically. The truth is that the
computer is already positioned where it needs to be when the battle
expands. When a section expands or are united into a whole, the
problem is compounded. Without a sense of the entire map, one
doesn't know what victory points or terrain features to focus on.
Some victory locations even disappear when a section expands. The
direction the map expands is uncertain as well. Then there's this
experience of mine. At the battle of Shiloh, the battle is initially
fought in two sections, the left flank, followed by the right flank.
During the fight for the right flank, I voluntarily retreated an
infantry brigade to the edge because it had exhausted its ammunition
(and the awkward deployment system gave two supply wagons and two
generals to the right flank, but zero to the left) and it
disappeared. My intention was for it to reenter the fight once the
flanks were combined on the next map, but only a few minute later
when the map expanded, the unit failed to reappear.
It quickly became clear, that Ultimate General: Civil War
isn't interested in allowing the player the freedom of a campaign,
but instead offers a very staged and disparate collection of set
pieces where even battles are micromanaged with scenes and actors.
To prove this point, I point to Shiloh and Fredericksburg (we'll save
Gettysburg for later). As mentioned, the two flanks of
Shiloh are combined for the renewed Confederate assault, but the
battle still has one more set piece to enact. Historically, Grant
and the Union was forced back to a collection of fortifications at
Pittsburg Landing. The next day, with reinforcements they launched a
counterattack which drove the Rebel army from the field. But in my
variation, I ended the first day with my line still intact from
Shiloh Church to the Hornet's Nest. My Union army still fielded
37,000 men, but the Confederates only had 1,700 available!
Yet, Civil War still
mandated a second day. More atrociously, my army automatically
withdrew to its historic position at the Landing. I sat through an
incredibly boring wait, while soldiers reclaimed the victory
locations unopposed. Over at least fifteen minutes, I didn't witness
a single Confederate Brigade.
Fredericksburg
illustrates a different difficulty. The battle was split into four
sections, like Shiloh. In the first scene, a minor Union force
invades across a river into the town of Fredericksburg, located in
what will eventually be the northern most of three sections. The
second sections occurs in the southern most region, as the Union
assaults Prospect Hill. Regardless of the outcome, the player is
returned to the first section with reinforcements. And in
conclusion, the final map includes the northern region and a new
middle section, where the assault includes only a part of the corps
previously deployed to the southern section. The remainder of the
southern conflict and the missing corps are left unexplained,
unexamined, and unresolved.
These examples show
how Civil War paradoxically wants to allow the player to
create their own campaign from scratch, but refuses to allow for
ahistorical results. It compels the player to enact all the major
scenes of each battles, regardless of how absurd they are, even
forcing the player to retreat or advance when a proper reading of the
situation requires the opposite action.
Next week Awkward
Mixture will conclude this extended series on Ultimate General
by directly comparing the two variations of the Battle of Gettysburg,
while considering a few further absurdities and a final conclusion.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment