From: sens@worldnet.att.net (Sens) Subject: Sid Meier's Gettysburg (SMG) - comments Gregg Charlton wrote: >> Some compared AOE to Civ (in their wet dreams). You can do better by >> trying the next product from Sid himself, Sid Meyer's Gettysburg, from >> Firaxis. It is a real-time wargame, using both texture-mapped units >> and bitmaps for scenery. I think it has 5-6 levels of zoom, and 4 >> compass-point viewing angles. Multiplayable, using DirectPlay (IPX To correct my own gaffes: It's Meier, not Meyer (I was thinking of Oscar Meyer hotdogs, hahah). The map rotates in 8 increments, not 4. >That's the game I'm awaiting. Overall, the ability to issue orders to >individual regiments or entire brigades, true terrain effects, scheduled >(and, hence, limited) reinforcements, morale effects, leadership, >varying styles of AI (direct, indirect, flexible etc.) give Gettysburg >the potential to be one of the more innovative releases of 1997. I'd I'm playing the campaign game on the Confed side (lvl 3 difficulty, prudent, flexible) and the game is TOUGH. And for the first time ever for a computer wargame, I'm happy to say that it is tough to win because it is a good game with a decent AI. The game has beautiful graphics for a wargame. The 3-D texture-mapped units allow for different view angles. The rolling terrain looks great (yep, terrain makes a BIG difference in combat). The morale and combat seem to be realistic (I'm not a Civil War buff, so I can't speak with authority on authenticity). There isn't any Time Rift device or Shockwave Generator, but for historical gamers, then SMG is easily the best computer wargame to date, and I would certainly vote for it to be the best computer strategy game of the year. ----------------------- Some info for those interested: As per the name, the game is about the Gettysburg battle (first? second?) during the American Civil War. There are 5 tutorial scenarios to get you acquainted with the controls, 25 scenarios--the majority of which are hypotheticals--that you can play from either side (i.e. 50 scens), a campaign game (can be composed of historical, random, or both types of battles) for each side, and a random battle generator once you've exhausted the preset battles. The random battles can be specified for the size of the engagement. Also, you can play competitive or co-op against other folks using DirectPlay, over the Internet or through LAN or modem. There are 4 levels of difficulty, plus two other "generalship" settings (aggressive/prudent/cautious and indirect/flexible/direct). The preferences also let you set, among other things, "more" or "less" units in a battle (default is less). Terrain types: urban (houses), woods, wheatfields, plain/grass, rocks/rough, roads. Terrain have different elevations, which affect LOS and fire effect. There is also entrenchment, which is automatically dug when a unit is not under enemy fire for a long enough period of time. Terrains have a dramatic effect during combat. A unit on a hill under wooded cover is at a considerable advantage during combat. Unit types: Infantry, cavalry, artillery, leaders. No AT-AT walkers (damn). Individual units are regiment sized. 5-6 regiments form a brigade. You can either control each regiment on its own, or control the entire brigade. Regiments can be detached from brigades for independent maneuver. Artillery units are horse-drawn batteries of 3-6 guns (I've seen Rifles and Napoleons so far) that must be unlimbered to fire and limbered to move. There is a leader for each brigade, and usually a higher division/corps leader. Leaders affect rally, and enable certain combat activities (charge). Formations: Line - your standard formation for combat. Skirmish - a spread out formation for harrassing, scout, and flank cover. Column - for fast movement, but not when you're under fire. Implied with formation is facing. You can Wheel to change your facing. You don't want to get fired upon in your flanks or rear for obvious reasons. Units will automatically change facing to face their most dangerous target. Brigade formations: Single line - lines abreast. Double line - 3-2 "W" formation. Skirmish - skirmish lines abreast. Road column - double columns, one after another. Manuever - columns abreast. Brigades also have a Wheel command to change facing. Morale: Green troops (2 morale blocks), trained (3), veteran (4), crack (5). In addition, there are modifiers if you have left/right/rear support from other friendly regiments, and if there is leader nearby. Troops that exceed their morale will route to the nearest rallying leader, and for all practical purposes, be lost for the duration of the battle (battles are fairly short, only 2-3 hours long). Troops will also fall back or retreat on their own volition, depending on stress, casualties, and enemy pressure exerted upon them. Movement: Line formations move slower than skirmish or column. Columns will take more casualty if under fire. Skirmish will take hits to morale when moving (why?). You can move normally or double quick (take hits to morale). You can retreat (turn tail and run backward for a distance before reforming) or fall back (gradually moving backward while maintaining same facing). You can move obliquely (at a tangent without wheeling your formation). Leaders can move independent of the brigade they command. Combat: Unit firing is automatic when within range. A unit on manuever will abort its movement at sight of enemy unit and will open fire (you can force it to move after that). You can charge the enemy, if a leader is nearby. There are also various bugle calls, although I haven't gotten around to use them yet. Ammo/supply: Not modeled, which is probably appropriate for the short duration of these battles. Battles: Battles have a starting force, and there may be reinforcements coming on the map at a later time. There can be friendly forces controlled by the computer. Unit placements are usually fixed, but can be randomized to a certain extent. --------------------------- Hereafter is my experience with the game. First, we'll get the bad things out of the way. Problems: 1) No waypoints. This isn't as major a problem as with other games, as most of the SMG battles start with your units mostly in position, and you don't get to run around a whole lot in SMG battles. Still, waypoints would be nice for flanking manuevers and for bringing reinforcements to the front with just a one-time plot rather than separate plots. 2) Roads are useless. Because of problem #1, you don't have the luxury of plotting move paths along a winding road, but just a straight line to wherever you're going. 3) Calvary looks just like infantry. The only thing that tells them apart is their unit name. I only found that I had calvary in the first campaign battle as the Union when I took casualties (calvary is 2X points in casualty). Up to that time, I was using them as line infantry. 4) No way to turn off the trees/houses. When units are among these, their move plots are obscured, making you have to rotate the map and fine-tune your plots. The rolling terrain, when it rolls away from you, exacerbates the problem. This is the largest problem by far in SMG, and makes for considerable slowdown in play because of micromanaging your exact destination. One easy workaround is to let the different terrain coloration (already present in the game) signify the different terrain. Aesthetics would take a hit, but functionality would be increased. 5) The disappear/reappearing terrain when you're moving the map. I can get used to the disorientation, but it takes a split second for the map to reset every time you scroll it, and all those split seconds add to more slowdown. I finally choose a higher zoom-out setting than I would like so that I can cut down on the scrolling (I'm playing in 800x600x64K on in 17" monitor). 6) In corollary with #5, map rotates take about a second to complete, plus the disappear/reappear thing, it takes about 2 seconds. For a 180-degree rotate, you hit the key 4 times, and the map would rotate once, pause, twice, pause, third time, pause, and fourth time. It's way too slow. 7) When move plotting a brigade, regiments always want to switch places in the formation when the new plot facing is 45 degrees or more removed from their original facing, e.g. the left-most regiment wants to switch places with its righthand neighbor. This makes for considerably longer maneuvering, which is always bad when you're doing it under fire. 8) Artillery are drawn too large. They obscure adjacent infantry units. 9) As it stands, the game still requires a considerable number of pauses to give commands and make adjustments, so for multiplay (i.e. nonstop play) to be workable, the player's command capacity is limited to one brigade, or perhaps two brigs at best, which means that you can't really play a full battle with just one other opponent (well, you can, but your troops won't behave too well). With a number of technical improvements (waypoints, map scrolling/rotating, terrain minimizing, more keyboard shortcuts, etc), the command capacity can be enlarged. Of course, you can always set game speed slower than the default, but that will stretch the time required for a multiplay session to probably 150-200%. Bugs: 1) The game sometimes won't unpause, and I have to do an Alt-Tab to another app and an Alt-Tab back to get the game to start running again. AI: Friendly move: In SMG, you can move through all terrain types (they just slow you down in differing degrees), so there is no obstructions that cause headaches with pathing. In combat, unit react intelligently, changing their facing, falling back and retreating as dictated by the situation. I've no beef with the move AI. Computer move & combat: In defense, the computer will react to flanking manuevers in a fairly effective, if rather idiosyncratic fashion. Artillery usage is good, although it can be fooled to a certain extent. The computer makes good use of high grounds and sheltered terrain. In attack, it seems to be able to concentrate its forces at weak points and exploit its advantage (I say "seems to" because I've only played one game on defense). It knows to deploy skirmish lines on flanks, and to harrass your own flanks. To sum up my characterization of the computer AI, I would say it is competent, even if not terribly imaginative. Here's an example of play. This play is when I won a decisive victory after about 4-5 tries. Confed campaign (historical, level 3 difficulty, prudent, flexible), 3rd battle - Battle of Cemetery Hill. The Confeds (myself) are situated N and NW of Cemetery Hill. The division has 4 brigades, and is under the command of General Rodes (Mediocre rating). On the N side, I have General Doles (experienced) and General Daniels (competent). On the NW side, I have Iverson (competent) and O'Neal (mediocre). Cemetery Hill forms the shape of an inverted ladle, with the bowl portion facing northward and the handle running SW along a ridge. Initial enemy size and disposition, as with all of these battles, is unknown at start. Objectives are the summit of Cemetery Hill (10 VP, or 1000 points) and Ziegler's Grove (5 VP) to the southwest. Iverson & O'Neals are weak brigades, so I set them in single line formations parallel to the ridge out of small arms range. These are to form the anvil. Daniels has the strongest brigade, so I moved him directly northward of the "bowl" portion, close enough to bring the Union arty spot under fire. I set Doles in columns (Manuever) formation and have him going SE through Raffenberger's Hill and toward Culp's Hill to take the Union position from behind. This is to be the hammer. I positioned the 4 artys that I have to bring the bowl portion under fire (experience has shown that the Union forces always cluster around this point). I let Rodes roam around with his Rally enabled to babysit any stressed regiment. >From previous plays, I didn't bring my forces into contact with the enemy, since with their superior arty and better situated troops (entrenched, higher elevation, wooded cover), my "anvil" would be in tatters before my hammer would arrive. The computer has shown an appropriate knack to shift its troops well using interior lines, so I was looking for a little luck as much as anything. Doles arrived at Culp's Hill, and I deployed him into line formation. In this particular play, the computer overcompensated in shifting its forces (probably because it considered Doles to be the greatest threat, as it hasn't engaged any of the other forces). It placed one partial brigade facing Doles, and the vast majority of Union troops are massed around Cemetery Hill, facing Daniels. The "handle" portion of the line (facing Iverson and O'Neal) is deserted except for an arty battery, and 2 regiments permanently dug in around Ziegler's Grove. Doles, with the advantage of rough terrain on Culp's Hill, proceeded to defeat the partial brig facing it. On the north side, Daniels is taking major lumps from the massed Union troops. Seeing the opportunity, I switched gears and the anvil became the hammer. I pushed 2 regiments from Iverson's brigade into the gap and they rolled up the Union flank northward, taking advantage of the wooded cover. I also pushed O'Neal regiments alongside Iverson, and they pushed the Union forces southward. On the south side, all five regiments from O'Neals' brigade have Ziegler's Grove under fire. Prior plays have shown that charging the position is a very bad idea. I've charged the position from the flank/rear with 3 regiments simultaneously, and they've gotten whacked and thrown back. So this time I was content to sit back and fire upon it in a 270-degree arc. To the north, Iverson's flanking success is barely in time to save Daniels' failing forces. I wheeled what's left of Daniels to line up with Iversons in a line running north-south, and pushed eastward. To the east, Doles routed the units facing him, and I detached 2 units from the brigade (one for flank cover, the other because it's almost dead) and pushed the other two westward into the Union rear. Suddenly, I've gotten news that the Union troops on Ziegler's have surrendered (troops marched off in order into the sunset). I straightened out O'Neals' line and do a mop-up on the south side. On the north side, there was still a considerable number of Union troops milling about, but I've taken the hill along with the woods, and the heigh advantage and cover were now on my side. Doles formed a screen on the backside of the Union forces, preventing any rallies. After what seemed like forever, I finally got the win. To sum, the computer AI is competent, but it can make a major stupid decision as the one above (no human commander would make that blunder). Overall, however, it is still the best AI I've played against in a computer game (chess excluding). After assessing the size of the Union forces (the casualties screen will show the total number of troops on each side at end of the battle), it seemed like the computer was pretty substantially favored in terms of force ratios (it had slightly less than mine, but more arty, and of course better cover). One complaint I have for battle #4 (Battle for Culp's Hill) is that you don't have time to rearrange your defenses in any major way before the Union forces attack your position. The default layout has the weakest brigade facing the strongest Union attacks, and they just can't hold up. Anyway, I'll probably figure it out. I would certainly suggest this game to any wargamer. It is more complex than your average C&C clone, so I don't think it will rival the DR's and TA's in terms of popularity, but it easily wins out over any computer wargame you care name, real-time or turn-based. Afterthoughts: In a way, this game reminds me of the old SSI Civil War games (Antietam, Gettysburg) I played on my 286 AT clone. Of course, the SSI games were just each single battles (with minor variants), and units were rectangular bars being drawn on a 320x200x4 CGA screen. It feels the same. May be all Civil War games feel the same? I don't know. The US Civ War isn't my forte, and up until SMG, I haven't played many computer Civ War games. I tried SMG because it is real-time (you can pause to give orders, just in case I didn't mention that) and not your uninspired turn-based rehash from some boardgame. With minor changes, I can see this engine refitted for the Napoleonic era. From: Brian Reynolds Subject: Re: Sid Meier's Gettysburg (SMG) - comments Thanks for your cogent review. I'll try to respond to some of your questions where appropriate. For the things where I just have to go "hmmmm" I'll pass them on to the rest of the design team. Brian Reynolds FIRAXIS Games (More embedded below...) Sens wrote: > > Gregg Charlton wrote: > [Various intermittent snippage] > I'm playing the campaign game on the Confed side (lvl 3 difficulty, > prudent, flexible) and the game is TOUGH. And for the first time ever > for a computer wargame, I'm happy to say that it is tough to win > because it is a good game with a decent AI. Comment: the 3rd level of AI (Doubleday/Longstreet) is what we call the "fair" level, where you play by exactly the same rules as the computer. At the highest level, your men are slightly more "brittle", and will break more quickly under fire (though they take the same number of casualties). At lower levels the computer-controlled men are slightly more brittle. >Skirmish will take hits to morale when moving (why?). Movement in skirmish is a "disorganizing" influence (which is why they didn't just move in skirmish all the time). Disorganization is a large part of what is being simulated in the morale bar. >There are also various bugle calls, although I > haven't gotten around to use them yet. I should clarify the purpose of these-- as you play the game, you may hear bugle calls from time to time. These are the orders the -enemy- player is giving to his troops, and represent a bit of free intelligence to you (by contrast, when you give orders to your own troops, you hear the officer shouting the order). The "bugle calls" menu lets you hear the standard bugle calls so that you can try to identify the ones you're hearing the enemy give. Sorry if this wasn't clear. > 1) No waypoints. This isn't as major a problem as with other games, > as most of the SMG battles start with your units mostly in position, > and you don't get to run around a whole lot in SMG battles. Still, > waypoints would be nice for flanking manuevers and for bringing > reinforcements to the front with just a one-time plot rather than > separate plots. Yes. Kind of falls into the "nice things we didn't get around to" category, though partially it helps to spice up team games (cooperation becomes more necessary). > 2) Roads are useless. Because of problem #1, you don't have the > luxury of plotting move paths along a winding road, but just a > straight line to wherever you're going. If you put your brigade in Road Column, they will attempt to follow roads, trails, and pikes, along their path. You'll usually want to get them lined up on the road first if possible, since they won't vastly detour out of their path to get onto a road, but will tend to stay on them once they're on. Not a perfect solution, I admit, and we'll keep working on it for the next game at least, but perhaps better than you thought on first glance. > 3) Calvary looks just like infantry. The only thing that tells them > apart is their unit name. I only found that I had calvary in the > first campaign battle as the Union when I took casualties (calvary is > 2X points in casualty). Up to that time, I was using them as line > infantry. Couple items here: * First is that cavalry looked and fought quite like infantry at this period. * Second is that in Sid Meier's Gettysburg, the flags on cavalry regiments are actually different from infantry flags (those little streamers). * Third is they of course look quite different when you actually mount them up, which you can do by clicking the Column button for a regiment (won't be visible unless the commander is nearby) or Attaching them to the brigade and clicking the "Maneuver" or "Road" button for the brigade commander. > 4) No way to turn off the trees/houses. Try the "Small trees and houses" preference. We've also had a couple requests for a "No trees and houses" option, which we're considering adding in a patch. > 5) The disappear/reappearing terrain when you're moving the map. I > can get used to the disorientation, but it takes a split second for > the map to reset every time you scroll it, and all those split seconds > add to more slowdown. I finally choose a higher zoom-out setting than > I would like so that I can cut down on the scrolling (I'm playing in > 800x600x64K on in 17" monitor). Yes, the other major complaint cropping up. We're definitely putting in a "no disappearing terrain" preference in a patch, for those with higher performance machines. For lower end machines, there is also the preference for simply disabling the scrolling (combine this with the preference that makes right-clicks center the man, and use left-drag to move your units around). > 6) In corollary with #5, map rotates take about a second to complete, > plus the disappear/reappear thing, it takes about 2 seconds. For a > 180-degree rotate, you hit the key 4 times, and the map would rotate > once, pause, twice, pause, third time, pause, and fourth time. It's > way too slow. The "2" key does a 180 degree rotate all at once, and more quickly, I believe. > 7) When move plotting a brigade, regiments always want to switch > places in the formation when the new plot facing is 45 degrees or more > removed from their original facing, e.g. the left-most regiment wants > to switch places with its righthand neighbor. This makes for > considerably longer maneuvering, which is always bad when you're doing > it under fire. The formula we settled on is to redeploy the regiments in the way which causes the -least total distance- to be travelled. This sometimes apparently gives an individual regiment a "bad deal". On the other hand, when you're actually under infantry fire, regimental-level commands are often best anyway. > 8) Artillery are drawn too large. They obscure adjacent infantry > units. Hmmmm. > 9) As it stands, the game still requires a considerable number of > pauses to give commands and make adjustments, so for multiplay (i.e. > nonstop play) to be workable, the player's command capacity is limited > to one brigade, or perhaps two brigs at best, which means that you > can't really play a full battle with just one other opponent (well, > you can, but your troops won't behave too well). With a number of > technical improvements (waypoints, map scrolling/rotating, terrain > minimizing, more keyboard shortcuts, etc), the command capacity can be > enlarged. Of course, you can always set game speed slower than the > default, but that will stretch the time required for a multiplay > session to probably 150-200%. I think you'll find this to be more a matter of experience (I can remember back when I had to pause the game to give orders). Also, when you're playing multiplayer everyone has the same pressure you have (you don't have the feeling of the computer always being able to exactly adjust all its troops). > Bugs: > > 1) The game sometimes won't unpause, and I have to do an Alt-Tab to > another app and an Alt-Tab back to get the game to start running > again. Hmmmm. We'll look at that > against in a computer game (chess excluding). After assessing the > size of the Union forces (the casualties screen will show the total > number of troops on each side at end of the battle), it seemed like > the computer was pretty substantially favored in terms of force ratios > (it had slightly less than mine, but more arty, and of course better > cover). Actually, the -Union- side may be slightly favored in this scenario, but not the -computer-; if you switched sides you'd get the same advantages. When you reach this scenario in the campaign game, the Confederates have been winning all day and are now trying to stretch their victory to a major accomplishment (taking cemetery hill), which is of course a difficult one. The advantage is in the context of the campaign. > One complaint I have for battle #4 (Battle for Culp's Hill) > is that you don't have time to rearrange your defenses in any major > way before the Union forces attack your position. The default layout > has the weakest brigade facing the strongest Union attacks, and they > just can't hold up. Anyway, I'll probably figure it out. This is of course intended as a "feature"--force you to make hasty preparations for an attack. If anyone has any further questions, I'd be glad to answer them here, or on our website (http://www.firaxis.com). Brian Reynolds FIRAXIS Games (co-designer, Sid Meier's Gettysburg)