Grand Tactician: The Civil War

[Sranchammer]

I wonder if there's any modding possible

 

[Sranchammer]

Really think they should have gone turn-based.

 

[Higher Animal]

Really think they should have gone turn-based.

Real timers must win the battle against turn based grognards.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

http://www.grandtactician.com/thecivilwar/blog/

Road map and first EA patch have been released. Map pack, battle load/save and 1864 campaign are due first.

 

[Andnjord]

I've had a look at some of the youtube videos released and this game looks sooooo promising it's not even funny. But, before it gets there, the devs need to seriously improve on the AI (both the Campaign and Battle AI) and improve the feedback to the player in battle. I'm fine with units refusing orders or changing their behavior on the battlefield, but the game should make it clear when and why orders are being followed or disobeyed so that the player is not constantly wondering if the unit's inaction is due to a bug or if his brigades are panicking. Otherwise battles could be terribly frustrating if the player doesn't feel in control and doesn't know why he isn't.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Should be out soon today.

Early Access trailer

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

Played it for a few hours yesterday. This thing has more bugs than a Mexican daycare center. But it's fun and like most children going to public school, it has a lot of potential.

Some bugs I noticed

UI sets to default with some options, even if you change them. UI also has a habit of zapping out to another dimension while playing.
Attrition and disabled numbers keep going up in my armies, even if they're near a supply depot or city. After a while even a large army becomes unusable because of attrition.
Navies caught the Rome 2 bug in that they sometimes feel the need to sail over land to reach their destination.
UI and map scrolling lag and overall uneven performance.
Fort/depot bug where you click on the icon and then it turns white with code text in the building window and the fort never gets finished.
AI skill is mixed. At times it acts like a waterhead, then it suddenly turns into Heinz Guderian and blitzkriegs its nearest objectives. Could be a path-finding issue.
Finance and policy choices seem nebulous. Could use some more tips on exactly what money options do to affect inflation, recruitment, etc.
Battles are kinda borked for now. Even auto-resolve is pretty bad. It's not uncommon to have a result of a battle be 10,000 casualties on one side and like 5 on the other.

 

[Andnjord]

Thanks for all those taking part in the early access. I am immensely interested in this game but I ain't touching it with a ten-foot pole until they fix a lot of that stuff.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

I think this might count as a pyrrhic victory. Somehow 60 CSA troops inflicted 3,000 casualties on Grant's army. We won the battle, but not before succumbing to the rebel troops with their AK-47 rifles and anti-personnel grenade launchers.

 

[thesecret1]

I think this might count as a pyrrhic victory. Somehow 60 CSA troops inflicted 3,000 casualties on Grant's army. We won the battle, but not before succumbing to the rebel troops with their AK-47 rifles and anti-personnel grenade launchers.

It says 0 killed, but that's not true. Grant's career was dealt a moral blow.

 

[Sranchammer]

I think this might count as a pyrrhic victory. Somehow 60 CSA troops inflicted 3,000 casualties on Grant's army. We won the battle, but not before succumbing to the rebel troops with their AK-47 rifles and anti-personnel grenade launchers.

It says 0 killed, but that's not true. Grant's career was dealt a moral blow.

3k casualties from a Grant led attack is peanuts.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

I think this might count as a pyrrhic victory. Somehow 60 CSA troops inflicted 3,000 casualties on Grant's army. We won the battle, but not before succumbing to the rebel troops with their AK-47 rifles and anti-personnel grenade launchers.

It says 0 killed, but that's not true. Grant's career was dealt a moral blow.

3k casualties from a Grant led attack is peanuts.

Years later the battle would come to be known as 'Lukewarm Harbor.'

 

[AwesomeButton]

Just bought Grand Tactician, the game is massive incline. I was one of the priviliged who bought Oliver's past game - The Seven Years' War - and even made a little mod for its interface.

 

[manassassas]

What's the latest consensus on this? Got a bit of time off coming up soon and thought I might pick it up. Been watching a few Youtube videos and it looks a lot improved since launch but it still essentially looks like just moving armies around the map until they meet the enemy. Has the economy been improved? And has work been done on the AI?

 

[Jugashvili]

Just got this, having enjoyed the author's Seven Years War game. I haven't tried the campaign yet, but the battles look great. I'm currently playing through Gettysburg relying only on map view and staff dispatches, and it's probably the closest experience to Prussian army kriegsspiel you can get from a computer game. I've played Day 1 "straight" and the results so far have been almost perfectly historical. On my left, I delayed with Pleasonton at McPherson ridge at the Chambersburg Pike, then held same with I Corps 1st Division. I then secured the southern crossing with the rest of I Corps, as it arrived, and held it at heavy cost due to the artillery being delayed. On my right, XI Corps was overwhelmed at Barlow's knoll and I fell back to the heights north of Gettysburg, hoping for the arrival of XII Corps. By 8 PM the situation on the right was dire and I withdrew what was left of XI Corps south of Gettysburg, falling back to Seminary Ridge with I Corps whose right flank was now hanging in the air. By nightfall, II and XII Corps were arriving and it seems the second day will begin almost as it did historically. So far, I'm very impressed

Edit: Saving and restoring seems to break scenarios. On Day 2 the enemy remained idle and any of my corps that arrived on the battlefield never seemed to receive orders to redeploy, even taking order delay into account, so the game still needs a lot of TLC. Still, it has tremendous potential.

 

[Nutria]

I've played Day 1 "straight" and the results so far have been almost perfectly historical.

I have to ask this about any wargame. Do you feel like it ended up with historical results because it was simulated well, or is it just railroaded so that it will end up with that outcome no matter what?

 

[Jugashvili]

I have to ask this about any wargame. Do you feel like it ended up with historical results because it was simulated well, or is it just railroaded so that it will end up with that outcome no matter what?

In this case, definitely because it was simulated well. The Gettysburg map, for instance, is enormous and much more generous than what you usually get, starting about a mile south of the round tops and stretching a mile north of Oak Hill. To give you an idea, as the Union player your reinforcements arrive in road columns and require approximately two hours of in-game time to march to McPherson ridge. As such, the game is extremely freeform and requires you to make commitments ahead of time, considering how long it would take for your troops to reach their destination when handing out orders. I was playing against "Historical AI", which means it made decisions along historical lines, as did I, but everything else (engagements, movement, etc.) felt perfectly historical. To me this means that, working with historical constraints and adopting historical decisions, results will be similar but that any "what-ifs" (what if you decide not to send XI Corps to Barlow's knoll, for instance) will yield interesting and historically plausible results. As the game is designed, you are free to approach battles in any way you see fit.

 

[Jugashvili]

Here are some more thoughts on the subject. This time I played an "unhistorical" Gettysburg, deciding to hold positions north of the town at all cost just for the heck of it. I managed to hang on by the skin of my teeth and this is what the situation looked like on day 2:

Spoiler

The enemy had taken me by surprise with an attack from Benner's Hill, which I managed to contain with my interior lines, but unbeknownst to me, they were also embarked on a long march on my right to cut off my lines of communication. Here's where things get interesting and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the game. The enemy devised and sprung a very good and viable plan, keeping me engaged with a strong demonstration on seminary ridge while attacking the Emmitsburg road (not pictured). I managed to counter this attack and eventually repel the enemy with heavy losses, but the fact is that the enemy didn't get any advantages from cutting off my lines of communication. In real life, my oversight would have caused a dramatic situation for the AoP that could have ended in disaster, but the game did not reflect this.

Another problem is that battle objectives are static; you are given a list of five objectives in a dispatch and these do not change throughout the battle. These objectives (Oak hill, McPherson ridge, Herr ridge, the Fairfield road and the Chambersburg pike) are virtually impossible for the Union to hold, and as such the Confederates spend most of the battle sitting on them, accumulating points. By the third day I had bled Lee's army dry, but he refused to surrender and I had to retake all those objectives and wait for a day or two to accumulate enough victory points, which felt boring and gamey. Furthermore, it means that if the battle is played historically, the Confederates would probably win by holding those points, most of which were completely irrelevant after the first phase of the battle. Casualties were very heavy, with about 10000 more losses than historically on each side and the loss of all Confederate artillery.

As for bugs and other issues, I feel that the AI uses artillery very aggressively, parking unsupported batteries within rifle-musket range and engaging in protracted firefights with infantry brigades, which it invariably wins. This would have been unthinkable in real life and would not have ended well for the artillerymen. I have found that the only solution in those cases is to bayonet charge them and capture the guns as soon as possible. Furthermore, some small detachments can become bugged and invulnerable to fire, and if you bayonet charge them they will chew up entire brigades without loss. We can only hope these issues will be ironed out in future updates.

I also tested a smaller battle (1st Bull Run). The gameplay felt a lot less janky and the battle came to a conclusion by the evening of the first day:

Spoiler

Casualties were historically plausible, with approximately 1000 losses on the Union side and 2800 men and 40 guns on the Confederate side.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Is there some kind of sharpness function?

I ask because the game looks interesting but I could never play something like this without going blind.

 

[Nutria]

Another problem is that battle objectives are static; you are given a list of five objectives in a dispatch and these do not change throughout the battle.

That seems to be an eternal problem in wargames. If it's something like Operation Market Garden, then yeah, it's all about the bridges and controlling the highway and you can make that be the way to score VPs. But in a battle like Gettysburg where it's more about defeating the opposing force and cutting off their line of retreat, you can't just guess in advance what points on the battlefield will be important.

 

[Luka-boy]

Another problem is that battle objectives are static; you are given a list of five objectives in a dispatch and these do not change throughout the battle.

That seems to be an eternal problem in wargames. If it's something like Operation Market Garden, then yeah, it's all about the bridges and controlling the highway and you can make that be the way to score VPs. But in a battle like Gettysburg where it's more about defeating the opposing force and cutting off their line of retreat, you can't just guess in advance what points on the battlefield will be important.

I liked the way Civil War Generals 2 did it.

You have the initial VP hexes, which are the historical/logical objectives at the start at the battle, but then new small VP hexes are generated dynamically as the units clash, to represent that a contested area has gained importance in the battle, potentially more than taking the initial objectives. If the battle rages on and more turns pass where units are fighting in those hexes, battle sites can end up having tons of big VP hexes because suddenly that area became as important or more important than the initial objective.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

Is this or Ultimate General Civil War the better game? Anyone?

 

[Jugashvili]

Is this or Ultimate General Civil War the better game? Anyone?

This game has a lot of potential, but UG:CW is a finished product and therefore much more polished and playable. UG:CW's campaign mechanics are not that good, though, and the scaling is very irritating.

 

[Baptismbyfire]

Is this or Ultimate General Civil War the better game? Anyone?

This game has a lot of potential, but UG:CW is a finished product and therefore much more polished and playable. UG:CW's campaign mechanics are not that good, though, and the scaling is very irritating.

Is UG:CW mostly a combat game, and lacks other gameplay layers like economic?