Sid Meiers Gettysburg

[xXxOvenMittsxXx]

Soooooo, been reading through the comments. I guess I'll address the elephant in the room. This is Sid Meier's Gettysburg/Antietam no? Strongest to the center, weakest used to flank and wrap the enemy with arty on the hill. and the general provides inspiration and rallies routed troops im guessing. SMG was like 15 dollars new, what does this game offer that makes it almost 50???

[LCcmdr]

Perhaps in a battle your assessment might be correct; but, the style of play here is much more micro intensive. And, GTCW is much more complex than the tactical combat components involving battle strategies. In GTCW, you work from the state level up, creating combat brigades (Inf/Cav/Arty) that have to survive long enough to grow to full strength. You create divisions, small armies, corps, and huge armies in the various war theaters. All the while, you have to anticipate the strength and intentions of every enemy army, plus manage all the polices that contribute to the war effort--from conscription, commerce, and diplomacy to ramping up for war production of rifles, carbines, artillery, etc.

So, an arcade game, GTCW is not.

[azitrax]

Yeah, you're comparing chess and checkers OP

[justAnotherBrickInTheWall]

Trying to compare an only specific tactical battle simulator to a strategic and multiple battles tactical simulator?

Right ......

[MainKiller7]

In a battle...it is like SM: Gettysburg.

In the overall scope? No.

While SM: Gettysburg is still better for a battle, don't get me wrong: The fact that can you pick your officers, weapons, deck out your soldiers attire, and replace generals who are trash (mcclellan or grant for example) makes it a stronger game over all.

When it comes to combat, this doesn't top Gettysburg.

Then you have the REALLY low bar with Ultimate General...and...yea. No.

[G Willikers]

This is not even close to Sid Myers in gameplay on any level

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

OP unwilling to be generous at all with their interpretation

Don't get me wrong, Grand Tactician has some whackerier things that bug my like unresponsive UI elements and bugs that have persisted for a good while

But scope wise I feel like it's probably one of the best atmospheric tools at actually kind of giving a picture for what the civil war looked like. Some things could be better but in general you have everything from policy management, technological development, economic stuff, naval stuff, things like ordering weapons, etc. real time world map, interesting incorporation of order delays on world map that incorporates tech at the time like telegram and actually visualize how it works, impression of european responses / potential outcomes during the war, etc

Heck it is one of the first games in general in the sphere of games like total war where you march around armies and fight tactical battles on a map that captures the scale of them in that instead of some mass battle happening in like, 10 mins, battles in the game actually properly end and continue the next day and stuff. Some battles can get surprisingly intimate with how they end up flowing (though I think 3 days is longest I've had), order delays actually have a little horse messenger running the order to your leaders, etc. You just don't see that atmosphere in other games.

Feel like there aren't lots of good gunpowder era war games in general so for someone who finds the era interesting and wished there were other napoleonic, 1812, etc games, this kind of at least satisfies me even if some things in it bug me lots still.

Gettysburg isn't a good comparison at all, OP, if anything the Slitheran / AGEOD title Civil War or Civil War 2 is closer comparison not because it doesn't have tactical battles, but because of the wider sphere of management the game deals with around it

Also this is a new game. SM Gettysburg is more than 20 yrs old lol, if anything you should be asking why that is $15 (tho it is a classic)