Ultimate General: Civil War

[AWS260]

The sequel to Ultimate General: Gettysburg is out of early access. I really like it. (I also really liked UG: Gettysburg, so if that didn't float your boat, then the new UG:Civil War probably won't either.)

The main difference between the two is right there in the name: instead of playing a single battle (broken into multiple maps), you play multiple battles, some of which are almost equal in scale to the original Gettysburg. All are based on actual Civil War battles, and you play them in chronological order (with some wiggle room for smaller optional battles in between the big ones). The maps are varied, and the AI is generally strong.

Your army persists between battles, so there is now a "camp" phase, when you can recruit and re-equip troops before heading back into the field. I've found that this raises the stakes and influences tactical decisions -- you don't want to let an experienced unit take too many casualties, or else they'll be less useful in future battles. It also provides an incentive to push for a win, since Congress awards more funding and troops after a win than a loss. It's not a proper strategic layer, though -- you're in a linear campaign based on history (with the possibility of an ahistoric battle for Richmond or Washington DC at the end).

I have my quibbles, but all in all, I'm having a blast. I'm looking forward to getting back to my Union campaign tonight -- we just won at Chancellorsville, but at terrible cost. Time to break in some fresh brigades.

[Rip]

The sequel to Ultimate General: Gettysburg is out of early access. I really like it. (I also really liked UG: Gettysburg, so if that didn't float your boat, then the new UG:Civil War probably won't either.)

The main difference between the two is right there in the name: instead of playing a single battle (broken into multiple maps), you play multiple battles, some of which are almost equal in scale to the original Gettysburg. All are based on actual Civil War battles, and you play them in chronological order (with some wiggle room for smaller optional battles in between the big ones). The maps are varied, and the AI is generally strong.

Your army persists between battles, so there is now a "camp" phase, when you can recruit and re-equip troops before heading back into the field. I've found that this raises the stakes and influences tactical decisions -- you don't want to let an experienced unit take too many casualties, or else they'll be less useful in future battles. It also provides an incentive to push for a win, since Congress awards more funding and troops after a win than a loss. It's not a proper strategic layer, though -- you're in a linear campaign based on history (with the possibility of an ahistoric battle for Richmond or Washington DC at the end).

I have my quibbles, but all in all, I'm having a blast. I'm looking forward to getting back to my Union campaign tonight -- we just won at Chancellorsville, but at terrible cost. Time to break in some fresh brigades.

This is on my list just waiting on a sale.

[Daehawk]

Hmmm well this has some interest to me. I love the overhead view with how you can set attacks. Most games have you move forward in a straight line only. this one seems to let you curve and waypoint the route. I love the Civil War era and stuff along those liens but never bee na big CW gamer. The only two I ever loved were North & South on NES and Sid's Gettysburg on PC.

[AWS260]

I wrapped up my Union campaign over the weekend. It was interesting to see how the battles evolved in line with history, with more assaults against entrenched defenses, and smaller Confederate armies (there is an attrition mechanic for the AI -- win multiple lopsided victories, and it will start to field fewer numbers).

As a result, the last quarter of the campaign felt pretty grindy. I was confident that I could win most scenarios win due to my superiority in numbers, but getting to victory was often a tough slog. The final Battle of Richmond was a massive frontal assault by my entire army against heavy Rebel fortifications -- epic in scope but exhausting in execution. Nevertheless, the Union is whole, and I will surely go down in history as a hero/butcher, depending on what state you live in.

I'm looking forward to going through the Confederate campaign, but I think I need a little break from fratricide before diving back in.

[AWS260]

Man, this game really holds up. So much fun.

[dbt1949]

I have it and have watched youtube videos of it but the real time still scares me.

[AWS260]

You can issue orders when paused, if that helps.

[Apollo]

I played this several years ago and loved it. It reminded me a lot of Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the Real Time aspect of the game didn't bother me at all. My only problem was that after several battles I was asked to field X number of units for the next battle and I had nowhere near that many to field. Apparently, though I thought I was doing well, I was taking too many casualties. Since I had nowhere near enough units to deploy for the next battle I stopped playing and haven't picked it up since.

Might be time to give it another try.

EDIT: I just realized it was actually the Union campaign I played, figuring I would try the Confederate one afterwards as it would naturally be harder. That's what discouraged me the last time I played: The game was too tough, but I wasn't aware of it until after putting 25 hours in and getting to a point where I had no hope of future success.

[Daehawk]

I used to play some civil war game on the NES. Was fun. You set up your army on one side of the screen with infantry and canons then the fight started and played out.

oh..North & South

[dbt1949]

Is the Ultimate General Gettysburg version easier?

[Apollo]

Is the Ultimate General Gettysburg version easier?

It's been a long time since I played, and it is possible I was doing something wrong all along that made me feel like the difficulty ramped up in middle of the game. But it is, otherwise, truly a great game worthy of trying. I still remember there was one battle the Union historically lost (The first Battle of Bull Run, I believe) that I actually managed to win, and all the maneuvering I had to do to pull it off was amazing. I felt like actual Civil War tactics and strategy were well represented in the game, but again it's been years since I played it. But, to answer your question, Gettysburg is an earlier release and Civil War is supposedly a superior game as it implements lessons learned from Ultimate General: Gettysburg. I have no idea if it is easier or not.

[dbt1949]

Thanks! My logic would think the Civil War version would be easier.

[Unagi]

Thanks! My logic would think the Civil War version would be easier.

And (if you didn't know) in the new Civil War version you can just play the Gettysburg battle as a single Historic or Custom battle, or even parts of it - like Pickets Charge, Culp's Hill, Devil's Den.. (In other words, it's not just part of the Civil War campaign, but it also is).

[dbt1949]

I have both versions but have only played the Gettysburg one a little bit.

[AWS260]

In my current playthrough, I'm in the middle of the Battle of Chancellorsville as the Union. We've survived the first onslaught, then the nearly overwhelming second onslaught.

Now, with my forces in tatters, a message pops up that says "Time to counterattack! Or maybe not. Sitting here is cool, too." Not those exact words, but definitely that sentiment. I will choose the latter option.

[AWS260]

Jesus, Chickamauga. Oof.