Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
For nothing in the world!!!!
do not believe me, but read others! everyone is talking and crying about the same thing! Ay dumber nowhere!
And you can take my word for it, Sid Meir Gettysburg is head and shoulders better than this one! (if the graphics are not the main thing for you - try it! you will get a lot of pleasure. ))
Haven't played Sid Meir Gettysburg in like forever, even that probably is more nostalgia speaking. I remember that being scripted and on a timer, and it's just Gettysburg.
Ultimate General Civil War can get kind kind of arcady, there is a campaign of sorts and individual battles.
Forge of Freedom the strat map is a mixed bag, battles can take forever since it's turn based.
AGEOD Civil War games strat wise isn't bad but can get to a point where it's to many units and there is no real tactical interface (it's simulated mostly)
Take Command: Second Manassas maybe my favorite but even that is limited because again it's scripted battles on timer , though there is a limited sandbox mode.
Scourge of War: gettysburg.... Gettysburg fatigue and personally didn't like the maps so much.
War of Rights is fun at times but it's only like a few hundred people on a side and the officers sometimes don't have common sense (imo) The respawning can take the fun out of the game at times, but if you didn't respawn...
What this game needs is 4-8 multiplayer for the historical maps which it currently doesn't have.
I could go on about other games like Gary Grigbsy (War of rights?) John Tiller stuff, Hps simulation games, Sierra Civil War Generals, but.....
They all have flaws. So if you're able to turn your brain off a little bit, it's decent imo but has some flaws.
I like watching the guns pop in this game so that's why I keep reinstalling it.
UGCW, is not bad but the AI scaling, ruins it for me. I don't mind some handicap for the AI based on difficulty, but to punish the player for having good strategy goes over the top.
As for this game, it is by far better than most other ACW strategy games out there now IMO and will continue to improve with time thanks to dedicated devs
The reason for the game's greatness is also one of the game's biggest problems -- the developers vision might be bigger than their ability to complete. At present the game is attempting to mimic the economy of mid 19th century United States while also creating both a strategic and operational American Civil War games. It is a lot for a small team to accomplish.
They are currently they working on patch 1.06 which will address the economy which, in my opinion, is presently complex without being approachable and adds little to the game. That said, I do love the developers desire to calculate war supplies down to individual weapons.
The strategic map is glitchy but they have made significant improvements since the game was released. It still needs more improvements especially in the area of supply lines.
The operational map is easily my favorite feature. It makes you feel like Grant and Lee looking at maps over a camp fire. The problem is even after multiple attempt to address it, the AI is pretty easy to beat. I win at least 80% of my battles though the AI is starting to make it tougher after the last few patches.
As I said earlier, this is my favorite ACW game. Despite it's flaws it gives you a feeling of two armies blundering into one another rather than the clockwork and arcade nature of a game like Ultimate General Civil War.
The game will be an all time classic if the developers can work through the game's issues however I do worry the game won't end up in what I'd consider a completed state. The developers have published a roadmap which does sounds good and even with its flaws, the game is fun to play at present. The money I spent was to support the developer's vision and so far they haven't let me down.
I like an overall, comprehensive approach to my war games. The more complex the better. That is not a preference for a lot of people though. Some prefer a simpler, or more one-dimensional type of war game. To each their own.
One big plus is the developers are still updating the game. And with each update the game has improved.
In my current CSA campaign, Aug of 63, I’m playing with the mentality of the southern heads at the time, which was to fight a generally defensive war, with the occasional incursion into the North. As it stands, I have an army of 450k. The North has an army of almost 700k, but they are only attacking occasionally, and piecemeal at that. If they attacked in forced, I’ll probably be overrrun.
Right before I saved, they did land a sizeable amphibious force to my rear, just south of Petersburg that I will have to somehow contend with. So the AI can still make it interesting!
Even with it’s shortcoming and flaws, I would still highly recommend the game.
I'm interested in operational and tactical strategy, I really don't care about building ships, recruiting, and managing taxes/technology. Granted some of that can be automated but it still results in a UI that's a bit too overwhelming for me to really enjoy. Of course for a lot of people I'm sure it's a dream come true.
I can't compare with any other civil war games, only with military games in general. This one is very, very good. Amazing how the strategical, operational and tactical levels are all included and merged in a satisfactory way.
Now I have no lunch money....
For me it is. And I'm a single player guy, so whatever this game is to anyone else is entirely their business.
It's like someone made a game designed specifically for me.