Ultimate General: Civil War or Gettysburg?

[HistoryPlayer]

I see both games interesting but which one would you say is better: Civil War or Gettysburg?

Thanks in advance

[TacoBell1157]

Gameplay wise, this much better, as it focuses on many other battles of the Civil War instead of just Gettysburg, as well as being a better developed game. The only upside to Gettysburg is that it's five dollars cheaper than Civil War, but I think that the five extra bucks is well worth the experience that you get from civil war.

[pandakraut]

Gettysburg gets you more of the 'what if' options in the Gettysburg battle and has multiplayer, though the player base is pretty small.

Civil war has more of a campaign and has better controls.

[HistoryPlayer]

Thank you, what about tutorials? Does Civil War have enough tutorial to learn the basic concepts of the game?

[pandakraut]

I wouldn't really say either game has good tutorials. I can't speak to what is available for UGG, but there are a number of community produced introductory guides and videos available for UGCW to help you learn the game.

[HistoryPlayer]

Thank you, I think I'll go with Civil War.

[Rael]

The first scenario of each campaign are kind of tutorials. They give you a taste of everything, cav, arty, skirmishers. They have plenty of time to finish. Although some on don't like them, I found them enjoyable and replayable.

[HistoryPlayer]

Would you say this game is easy or complex compared with other games such as Grand Tactician (never played) or Take Command 2nd Manassas (played)?

[pandakraut]

Campaign layer is much less complex than grand tactician. There is plenty of depth and small things to learn, but it's just inherently a smaller scope than a full on sandbox game where you are controlling more aspects of the war.

Battle layer is similar to GT, but direct control is emphasized so units have fewer settings for units. Similar tactical complexity but different focus.

I haven't played the other two so I can't speak to those.

[HistoryPlayer]

Thank you for your reply. I like what I have seen, seems to be very engaging and enjoyable. Take Command and Scourge of War are complex as you have to manage infantry units, cavalry units, artillery units, officers, generals, majors, liutenants, etc. but also the hierarchy levels is a little complex, the UI is not so user friendly and you also have couriers. Definitely this is the game I was looking for.

[pandakraut]

This is definitely the more micro heavy, perfect control style game, compared to something like Scourge of War or default settings GT. Though there is a mod that pushes the game much further in that direction.

But if you find those kinds of games enjoyable, I think you'll find something to like here.

[zombiewarrior07]

Gettysburg can be played on iPad, if that’s your thing.

[jstevenxia]

The Gettysburg has better graphic. The Civil War has far much better control and functions! I wish they can make similar version for American Independence War and Napoleonic War.

[G-Burg Bullet]

I think the artillery in Gettysburg is much more realistic (and challenging!). And I think some of the mechanics in Gettysburg are more realistic as well. I don't care as much about the campaign stuff in Civil War. Some of it seems a bit "gamey". Civil War gives you a lot more depth and choice of battles and scenarios across all theaters of the war. Both games are really excellent.

[[6thAL.I] Pfc Emperror steve]

i think civil war needs more historical battles and custom battles same with ultimate admiral