I agree that for tactical simulation, nothing beats Gettysburg. Gettysburg is so rich in detail that even seemingly minor tactical decisions can turn the battle. In Gettysburg, unit strength and terrain matter, but that is just the beginning. You need to deploy scouts to probe the enemy locations. You need to work hard to choose the battlefield or suffer the disadvantage of fighting on a battlefield your opponent has chosen. You need to decide which units will go on the line and which will be held in reserve. You need to decide where to position your lines, where to make them strong, and where and when to reinforce them. You need to decide when to stand and fight and when to order a tactical retreat. And you must always be ready to respond to an unexpected maneuver on the part of your enemy. A poor choice in any of these areas can result in an embarrassing defeat, no matter how strong your forces are. When you see how Gettysburg models unit strength (morale is more important than anything) you quickly realize that the typical model (you lose so many hit points, then you're dead) is downright primitive. Furthermore, the AI is good - really good! You feel like you are battling a worthy opponent. I like to play the same engagement over and over again, trying a different approach each time. You quickly learn that there are no easy calculations in battle; every advantage is tenuous and every plan has many contingencies. In time, you gain a sense of the factors General Lee must have been juggling in his head. (I must confess, I like to play the Confederates!)
Gettysburg doesn't incorporate any of the high-level political, strategic, or logistic decisions of war. In my opinion, that makes it the perfect compliment to many of the other games that are out there. I would like to see someone merge the strategic model of the typical war game with the tactical model of Gettysburg. Done correctly, that would result in a game that satisfies the desire originally expressed in this thread - a game with a richer depth of real strategy. It would also raise the bar for realism in war games. Let's hope it happens someday soon.
Sid Meier has not been resting on his laurels, but has contributed to the development of many games since Civilization. Among them is the game Gettysburg (and the related Antietam). In my opinion, Gettysburg does not get the recognition it deserves. Gettysburg is a great game. It is the best tactical battle simulation I have ever played. It is fun, creative, and innovative, and if there were any justice in the world, it would set a new mark for the industry. After all, the tactical detail of Gettysburg is exactly what is missing in most "strategy" games today. I suggest you give it a try.
Slashdot Mirror
Gettysburg doesn't incorporate any of the high-level political, strategic, or logistic decisions of war. In my opinion, that makes it the perfect compliment to many of the other games that are out there. I would like to see someone merge the strategic model of the typical war game with the tactical model of Gettysburg. Done correctly, that would result in a game that satisfies the desire originally expressed in this thread - a game with a richer depth of real strategy. It would also raise the bar for realism in war games. Let's hope it happens someday soon.
Sid Meier has not been resting on his laurels, but has contributed to the development of many games since Civilization. Among them is the game Gettysburg (and the related Antietam). In my opinion, Gettysburg does not get the recognition it deserves. Gettysburg is a great game. It is the best tactical battle simulation I have ever played. It is fun, creative, and innovative, and if there were any justice in the world, it would set a new mark for the industry. After all, the tactical detail of Gettysburg is exactly what is missing in most "strategy" games today. I suggest you give it a try.