Recommend
16 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Wargames» Forums » General

Subject: An interesting new computer wargame effort - Gettysburg rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I came across this new computer wargame effort. At first glance it gave me an instant woody, but I'll label it as "interesting" for the time being until such time it gels further.

The developer has multiple channels, and I put the links below. I also included a direct link to one of his YouTube videos as well as an interesting picture.

It's a realtime strategy game of Gettysburg, though the developer is very clear that he is developing a system, and Gettysburg is just the first title.

What caught my eye most is the scale and the art style, which I like both very much. It's very reminiscent of tabletop wargaming. I haven't verified it but I don't think the unit scale is quite exactly 1-to-1 but it sure looks close.

At minimum, I thought you guys would be interested to be aware of it.


Ultimate General
(Ultimate General website)

Ultimate General: Gettysburg - beta gameplay video



Ultimate General: Gettysburg - sample image



Ultimate General YouTube channel

Ultimate General: Gettysburg Steam channel
.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just hope it won't be to arcade and with "starcraftish" combat. I hate many modern strategy games for their too high pace of combat.

EDIT: Oh, the game will be for both PC and tablets. Not the best sign...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Norm Stewart
United States
Falls Church
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The perspective and graphics look very cool - I love the presentation.

It also appears to include a good model of morale - but it's tough to tell exactly what the combat model is.

Norm
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Morris
United States
Raytown
Missouri
flag msg tools
2nd, 6th and 7th Wisconsin, 19th Indiana, 24th Michigan
badge
24th Michigan Monument Gettysburg Pa
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just watching the first half and I see a major problem with how the units move and interact with terrain. Units traverse back and forth across things like the railroad cut and Willoughby's Run as if they aren't even there. At times you see units move to where one half is on one side of the railroad cut for example and the other half on the other side. Units would not do that. The railroad cut was a major feature of the terrain. You would never hang an end of your unit out to dry like that. A commander in that situation would have brought back that end of their line so keep it on the friendly side of the cut.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Excellent comments. These are the things that are on my mind. I pointed the developer to our discussion here in case he's interested in a grognardian perspective.

I love the visual and game designs. But yeah, the combat model seems to taste a bit like Command & Conquer.

I will emphasize, so far. I think the term beta has become poisoned to mean anything not ready in whatever state of unreadiness. That's not what beta means at all.

So, as far as I can tell, the developer has worked a lot on the "game" engine. I'm not at all convinced that the combat model is as yet written in stone. We'll see. Or, maybe he'll chime in here.

Also, looking more intently at the video, clearly the visual presentation is representative. Soldiers are not represented 1-to-1 and I think time is being compressed. So, it would not then be unusual for other factors to be abstracted. I don't really know yet but I'm intrigued enough to follow up on this title.


[Edit] Watching the video again. Yeah, big time. It's as if the terrain wasn't even there in some respects. I'm still thinking that it just hasn't been programmed yet. If not, this is a very good looking game but otherwise uninteresting to me.
.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Kluck
United States
Hudson
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really want it to be good, I've been following the project on Pocket Tactics and Shanendoah Studios website for some time. A 15 minute example of play is alailable on YouTube, and while it is really pretty looks very light tactically. Nothing about orders, formations, supply, just select units then throw them at the enemy like any other RTS.

I do hope I'm wrong.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Ryan
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They should look at this game for inspiration, since I think it was the first RTS game on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Gettysburg!
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rob Ryan wrote:
They should look at this game for inspiration, since I think it was the first RTS game on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Gettysburg!


And, with SM' Antietam, is still my favourite RTS ever. Thanks to Gettysburg I've learned that it is better to have one brigade in reserve than two in combat line.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mrbeankc wrote:
Just watching the first half and I see a major problem with how the units move and interact with terrain. Units traverse back and forth across things like the railroad cut and Willoughby's Run as if they aren't even there. At times you see units move to where one half is on one side of the railroad cut for example and the other half on the other side. Units would not do that. The railroad cut was a major feature of the terrain. You would never hang an end of your unit out to dry like that. A commander in that situation would have brought back that end of their line so keep it on the friendly side of the cut.


You make a good point about the seeming ease with which they traverse terrain. However, considering that units are division-sized, I don't think it a stretch to imagine a division frontage straddling the cut, so long as the individual brigade frontages are not. (Or possibly even leaving the distinction at the regimental level.)

That being said, I'd prefer it if the game were at brigade-level. The current division model certainly simplifies command-and-control issues, but at a cost in loss of granularity for maneuver and fire purposes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Kluck
United States
Hudson
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
That being said, I'd prefer it if the game were at brigade-level. The current division model certainly simplifies command-and-control issues, but at a cost in loss of granularity for maneuver and fire purposes.

Until you're scrambling with the interface on a small screen in real time.

Eric Lee Smith certainly has solid wargaming credentials but you can't please everyone, which is what it looks like he's trying to do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sitnam wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
That being said, I'd prefer it if the game were at brigade-level. The current division model certainly simplifies command-and-control issues, but at a cost in loss of granularity for maneuver and fire purposes.

Until you're scrambling with the interface on a small screen in real time.

Eric Lee Smith certainly has solid wargaming credentials but you can't please everyone, which is what it looks like he's trying to do.


It's possible to be scrambling with the interface at any unit level. After all, you're trying to command in real-time all the units that historically had individual commanders and orders. That's always a recipe for span-of-control problems. The most common workaround is to allow for altering the time scale (slow it down when needed, then speed it back up).

Entire divisions marching around in single-line mode just looks damn peculiar to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John New
United States
Accokeek, Maryland/
New York, NY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
That being said, I'd prefer it if the game were at brigade-level. The current division model certainly simplifies command-and-control issues, but at a cost in loss of granularity for maneuver and fire purposes.


I advert you to Matrix Games' "Gettysburg: Scourge of War" series. I've been playing it for several months and am blown away by it.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.
Quote:

I advert you to Matrix Games' "Gettysburg: Scourge of War" series. I've been playing it for several months and am blown away by it.


SoW and Take Command are quite good, but I HATE interface.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malaggar wrote:
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.


Mea culpa. Two thousand men would be a brigade, now wouldn't it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
Malaggar wrote:
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.


Mea culpa. Two thousand men would be a brigade, now wouldn't it?


Yes, quite big when it comes to Union.
At Gettysburg 2/1/1 and 2/1/3 have more than 2000 men, some other brigades were quite close this "magic" number.
As far as I remember the biggest brigade at Gettysburg was, not suprising, southern one - Pettigrew's brigade had 2500 soldiers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Kluck
United States
Hudson
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kaehl wrote:
Sitnam wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
That being said, I'd prefer it if the game were at brigade-level. The current division model certainly simplifies command-and-control issues, but at a cost in loss of granularity for maneuver and fire purposes.

Until you're scrambling with the interface on a small screen in real time.

Eric Lee Smith certainly has solid wargaming credentials but you can't please everyone, which is what it looks like he's trying to do.


You may be confusing two separate Gettysburg titles for iPad. This is not Eric Lee Smith's.

EDIT: This one is -> http://www.shenandoah-studio.com/products/gettysburg/

You're right, my bad. My faith in a respected wargame designer is restored.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joshua
United States
Roseville
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
This is definitely a 'wait and see' design. I've heard rumblings on the internets about the designer 1) having an enormous ego and 2) having bitten off more than he can chew here. Take this with a grain of salt as it is hearsay.

That being said I really want this to be a good game, it reminds me of the beloved Sid Meier's Gettysburg.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malaggar wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
Malaggar wrote:
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.


Mea culpa. Two thousand men would be a brigade, now wouldn't it?


Yes, quite big when it comes to Union.
At Gettysburg 2/1/1 and 2/1/3 have more than 2000 men, some other brigades were quite close this "magic" number.
As far as I remember the biggest brigade at Gettysburg was, not suprising, southern one - Pettigrew's brigade had 2500 soldiers.


Personally, I'm more familiar with the regiment sizes, from so many playings of TSS and its offspring. IIRC, Pettigrew had one regiment with 900 soliders, or thereabouts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarrellKH wrote:
Malaggar wrote:
DarrellKH wrote:
Malaggar wrote:
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.


Mea culpa. Two thousand men would be a brigade, now wouldn't it?


Yes, quite big when it comes to Union.
At Gettysburg 2/1/1 and 2/1/3 have more than 2000 men, some other brigades were quite close this "magic" number.
As far as I remember the biggest brigade at Gettysburg was, not suprising, southern one - Pettigrew's brigade had 2500 soldiers.


Personally, I'm more familiar with the regiment sizes, from so many playings of TSS and its offspring. IIRC, Pettigrew had one regiment with 900 soliders, or thereabouts.


Closer to 850, but yep, quite a regiment given the period of the war!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John New
United States
Accokeek, Maryland/
New York, NY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malaggar wrote:
Quote:
However, considering that units are division-sized
Brigade-sized.
Quote:

I advert you to Matrix Games' "Gettysburg: Scourge of War" series. I've been playing it for several months and am blown away by it.


SoW and Take Command are quite good, but I HATE interface.


Really? I find it quite easy to use. Chacun a son gout, as they say in China
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
oystein eker
Norway
Unspecified
sola
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is only one:

Scource of war

http://www.scourgeofwar.com/index.shtml

I bit outdated graphics - but behind that you find the best simulation. In the toughest simulation mode, you cannot fly over the battlefield or study an updated map.

You must ride to higher ground and use your binoculars. Your courier with important orders may have been killed. Your information about what is happening are not news - but probably several hours old.



Cut and paste from website:


‘Truly, this game was written with the Historian in mind. The level of detail is flat-out stunning.’

- Bryce T. Valentine (Armchair General)

‘… the realistic ramifications of multiplayer in Scourge of War: Gettysburg should make any strategy gamer salivate.’

- James Allen (Out of Eight)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał M.
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My biggest problem with SoW mechanics is hand-to-hand combat which generates too much losses (even if we count them as killed/wounded/captured they are just too high). I know some people on forums have this issue also, so I'm not the only one
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Davis
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Soldiers almost look as if they are represented at 10:1 - the 400 man skirmisher unit appears to have about 40 figures, visually.

It seems almost like a 'total war: American civil war'.

Although anyone who has played the Total War series lately (which, with mods and sufficient PC power could probably represent units on a 1:1 scale) the most impressive thing about this game is the AI.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M King
United States
Wilder
Kentucky
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eker wrote:
There is only one:

Scource of war

http://www.scourgeofwar.com/index.shtml

I bit outdated graphics - but behind that you find the best simulation. In the toughest simulation mode, you cannot fly over the battlefield or study an updated map.

You must ride to higher ground and use your binoculars. Your courier with important orders may have been killed. Your information about what is happening are not news - but probably several hours old.



Cut and paste from website:


‘Truly, this game was written with the Historian in mind. The level of detail is flat-out stunning.’

- Bryce T. Valentine (Armchair General)

‘… the realistic ramifications of multiplayer in Scourge of War: Gettysburg should make any strategy gamer salivate.’

- James Allen (Out of Eight)

+1. My favorite computer wargame.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Deacon
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Love thy fate.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looks like Scourge of War (www.scourgeofwar.com).

Does it have multi-player and a sandbox?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.