Why am I not liking this as much as Sid Meier's Gettysburg?

[Rett Mikhal]

I really want to like this game, but I am just not getting it. The gameplay seems too simple with a lack of formations and ability to split regiments. Some features are also freaking baffling. The automatic engagement is kind of nice that units will not stand still getting shot, but it also can be completely stupid when your units on the front line retreat back to engage something when you wanted them to stay there. The lack of the zoom and the abysmal sound design are also issues for the immersion; if I hear that badly voiced and overly loud 'RETREAT' one more time I'm going to have an aneurysm. Also what is a major downer for me is the lack of random battles like Sid Meier's had, where it didn't historically happen, but it could have.

I don't know, I'm regretting this purchase so far.

[turkey2002]

I like oranges more than I like apples, but the doctor says they are both good.

I don't know why, but I don't regret eating Popeyes chicken, which the doctor says is bad.

I'm regretting seeing the doctor.

[dfoidog]

I’ve enjoyed Ultimate General for countless hours but I do miss some of ways you could move and fight battles in the Sid Meier Civil War games.

You could detach infantry units, target infantry or artillery with your batteries and you could actually capture enemy batteries.

Your units would move by the path of least resistance, ie- roads, then trails, then paths, etc...etc to get to the battlefield faster. You could also choose to march and deploy units in column, double colmun or battle line.

You could even choose to move units “in echelon” meaning they never turn their back to the enemy when repositioning under fire.

Commanding Generals, Corps and Division commanders were present on the battlefield and any one of these commanders could rally troops that would normally be routed off the battlefield in Ultimate General.

I don't regret buying the game in fact I enjoy it immensley but I think it could be improved.

[Flharfh]

Sid Meier's series modeled units at the regiment level, meaning there were a lot more options and nuance as to how to fight the battle. It's a richer tactical experience when you have 25 smaller units compared to 5 big units. I think SMG was more realistic, too. Casualties and routing were done better, for example.

[osheamat]

This was a game built for tablets too, IIRC. So there is that...

[cromagnonman2k]

Sid Meiers had more unit flavor, esp Antietam.

[[57th] AngryHatter]

I agree with the OP.
This game is too much canned response.

[Concerned West Virginia Resident]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg was great until you realized the full battle scenarios were way too much of a mess with that level of detail.

[The Sid Man]

Yeah, been hoping they would add more zoom but never did. Not a fan of watching blue and grey ants fighting eachother. Thats what SimANT is for.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Not meaning to belittle at all, but:

The HOLD button has a lot of uses. It keeps units from shifting direction to auto-engage (though they will still fire at anything already in their firing arc)... it holds skirmishers in place... it keeps units from backing away until morale is broken.

As for the sound quality, well, yeah, no disagreement there. The ambient sounds while on the equipping/training screen are basically a 10-15 second loop, it sounds like... and the music is a 30-45 second loop of a forelorn trumpet, even if you won the last battle. But that's to be expected for an indie game... this isn't a Bethesda, CA, or Blizzard game, after all.

I really enjoy the game a lot, especially for the price. But yeah, it's still not really completely polished. What keeps me playing is the quality of the CPU opponent's play... there are still weird issues with objectives and unit placement between days. There are still issues. But some of those you listed are sort of basic 'learn the game a bit more' stuff.

But yeah, the sound is definitely the weakest part of the game. "KILL THEM ALL" and "RETREAT" and the horrible quality of the opening Lincoln speech deserve a solid 2/10.

That said, CPU deserves a 9/10 (though it still is remaining in the garrisonable, white-shield cover even when it should pull units in such positions back).

[Witherhorn]

You shoud check out Scourge of War: Gettysburg or its preddesesor Take Command: Second Manassas( Which is on steam). I feel they are the true spiritual succesors to SMG

[Hoellenbote]

That is true. Even though i strongly prefer TC:SM, it looks ugly today, but the gameplay is a lot better compared to Scourge, where every battle just seems to end up in a strange tangled mess of units.

[Kristoph42]

A lot of people have been saying that a good music score or more ambient sound would be nice. I agree.
Like someone said its apples and oranges or better yet ice cream cake and bananna pudding. Love them both. I like the sprites and graphics in ACW better then Sids Gburg. Like the sound track in Sids better then ACW. Truth be told . . . after a while I turn the sound off on Sids. The sprites in this game are better, I like the shell holes and bodies. A feature I would love to see is to review the battlefield after the battle is over, so you can see where the main fighting was, that would be cool

[Adrax]

I hope in the next release of Ultimate General they will add formations and random battles. These are the two most important things the game lacks.

[Traf]

Originally posted by dfoidog:

I’ve enjoyed Ultimate General for countless hours but I do miss some of ways you could move and fight battles in the Sid Meier Civil War games.

You could detach infantry units, target infantry or artillery with your batteries and you could actually capture enemy batteries.

The only you cannot do in this game is capture enemy artillery and open fire on your enemy from it. You can target infantry or artillery and even enemy commanders. But because of AMMO you wouldnt place your arty and forget about on whom its firing like it was at SMG.

Originally posted by dfoidog:

Your units would move by the path of least resistance, ie- roads, then trails, then paths, etc...etc to get to the battlefield faster. You could also choose to march and deploy units in column, double colmun or battle line.

You can decide the path they will move and this is a big plus! I dont want my flanking forces would be visible for enemy because they are marching beating drums by "path of least resistance". I want them move unknown for enemy in woods! Also, column or battle line is automated in this game and its a big plus. There is already enough micromanagement and you should trust your brigade commanders so they can choose if they are moving in line or column. Double column? Heh, what for?

Originally posted by dfoidog:

You could even choose to move units “in echelon” meaning they never turn their back to the enemy when repositioning under fire.

Moving "in echelon" needs a LOT of training for soldiers and their officers. This is just ahistorically impossible for US/CSA armies at those times because almost 9 of 10 soldiers were raw conscripts with simple maneuver training. Also its very hard for unexperienced soldier even stay and maintain a line while exchanging fire with enemy.

Originally posted by dfoidog:

Commanding Generals, Corps and Division commanders were present on the battlefield and any one of these commanders could rally troops that would normally be routed off the battlefield in Ultimate General.

You woudnt believe, but on battlefield were also brigade, regiment, company commaning officers. Want get them all? :) Lets calculate, at Battle of Washington my CSA Army had 4 corps and 14 divisions which make it total 18 commanders. Try historical Battle of Antietam for USA. There is 7 corps commanders on the field. Now find a place where you need all of them. You did it? Now try place 18 commanders :) Most of the battles are 1 corps sized and 1 commander is more than enough. Also I see no problems with large battles where 2-4 commanders is also more than enough. What I would like to see is an Army Commander with some perks. Like more ammo for McClellan or more morale for Lee. Also division commanders could have few perks too. Like John B. Hood +5% melee combat.