SIM Game Ultimate General: Civil War Review

Been playing this game for a long time. But I'm a slow player - almost like Little Mac in the eyes of his haters :D

Finished Union campaign on an MG difficulty, now running through the Rebel one, got to Chancellorsville.
It's super fun, but on higher difficulties often gets to "gaming the game" and not acting as a CW general would do in historical engagements. Like the cover bonuses from the woods. How would you differ a good defensive position from a bad one in-game? The good one is covered with dense woods :smile:
Also the scaling system sometimes launches the game balance to outer space. The battles like Rio Hill where you face hordes of dismounted cavalry are good example.

I like how historical battles are modeled. My favorites are Shiloh, 2nd Bull Run and Gettysburg. And I dislike Chickamauga (meatgrinding for the sake of meatgrinding, no matter which side you're on), Chancellorsville (even if you completely smash your enemy and capture all victory points on the 1st day - you have to start over from the same positions on the 2nd and 3rd ones) and Stones River (as a Rebel - I still don't understand the conditions for triggering "retreat to Nashville Pike" phase of the battle).
 
Finally won the battle of Shiloh as the Confederates. If you don't win it the first day, I don't see how it's possible to beat it on day two when reenforcements arrive, but it can be won on day one by taking Pittsburg Landing. I like to be slow and careful in advancing across the field to minimize casualties, but sometimes you just have to go for it.
 
Finally won the battle of Shiloh as the Confederates. If you don't win it the first day, I don't see how it's possible to beat it on day two when reenforcements arrive, but it can be won on day one by taking Pittsburg Landing. I like to be slow and careful in advancing across the field to minimize casualties, but sometimes you just have to go for it.

Correct at Shiloh you have to be aggressive and press forward and win on day 1.
 
Been playing this game for a long time. But I'm a slow player - almost like Little Mac in the eyes of his haters :D

Finished Union campaign on an MG difficulty, now running through the Rebel one, got to Chancellorsville.
It's super fun, but on higher difficulties often gets to "gaming the game" and not acting as a CW general would do in historical engagements. Like the cover bonuses from the woods. How would you differ a good defensive position from a bad one in-game? The good one is covered with dense woods :smile:
Also the scaling system sometimes launches the game balance to outer space. The battles like Rio Hill where you face hordes of dismounted cavalry are good example.

I like how historical battles are modeled. My favorites are Shiloh, 2nd Bull Run and Gettysburg. And I dislike Chickamauga (meatgrinding for the sake of meatgrinding, no matter which side you're on), Chancellorsville (even if you completely smash your enemy and capture all victory points on the 1st day - you have to start over from the same positions on the 2nd and 3rd ones) and Stones River (as a Rebel - I still don't understand the conditions for triggering "retreat to Nashville Pike" phase of the battle).


I hate Chickamauga with a passion. It is a complete meat grinder battle no matter which side you are on. I have yet to win it on the Confederate side because getting to the last objective I run out of time.

As for Stones River, the sections trigger based on the scenario timer. Even if you are fighting as teh Union, and holding your spots, when the sector timer is up it's going to the next scenario. I hate that aspect of the game. If you look at their forum you will see many people hate that aspect of the game, but they are not going to change it now.

Looks like they are considering doing a Napoleonic or american revolution version next.
 
One of the funniest results I got on Stones River was as Union. There was about one Rebel regiment left by the time the scenario timer said it was the end of the first day, so on the second day it seriously told me to hold out (with my tens of thousands of fit men) against roughly 850 Rebs.
 
I hate Chickamauga with a passion. It is a complete meat grinder battle no matter which side you are on. I have yet to win it on the Confederate side because getting to the last objective I run out of time.

Utter agreement there.
 
I admit to thoroughly enjoying the game. I have only finished as Union on campaign mode, but have begun a Confederate campaign. I often skip Wilderness and Mule Shoe, as I have my army ground down to nothing every time I play those. Cold Harbor? I have always slaughtered the Confederates. So skipping works. Especially if I am low on political points.
 
Something I've found interesting, if a bit cheaty, is to do a higher difficulty setting but use a trainer to purchase vast amounts of advanced munitions. That allows me to roughly simulate a European army in the Americas - so using lots and lots of Fayettevilles roughly simulates being the British or French with their rifle training obsession, while giving everyone Spencers is a Prussian way of doing things as a simulation of their Dreyse needle guns.

Though what annoys me every time is the Malvern Hill mission. Not only does it go with the incorrect idea that Malvern was a deliberate Confederate assault rather than an accidental one (with the real Confederate operational plan being to outflank Malvern and surround it) - acceptable given it's a game about battling - but it states in so many words that you (as the Confederates) are trying to catch McClellan just before he leaves the Peninsula having decided to abandon it. It gets the timing of the retreat from the Peninusla wrong by a month and a half and attributes it to McClellan instead of Halleck.

It wouldn't have been hard to get it right. Just say that McClellan's retreating to a position further away from Richmond instead and that this is your "last chance" to damage his army before he's out of danger / your last rearguard action, then open the battles of the Second Bull Run chapter by saying the Union is retreating from the Peninsula.
 
Something I've found interesting, if a bit cheaty, is to do a higher difficulty setting but use a trainer to purchase vast amounts of advanced munitions. That allows me to roughly simulate a European army in the Americas - so using lots and lots of Fayettevilles roughly simulates being the British or French with their rifle training obsession, while giving everyone Spencers is a Prussian way of doing things as a simulation of their Dreyse needle guns.

Though what annoys me every time is the Malvern Hill mission. Not only does it go with the incorrect idea that Malvern was a deliberate Confederate assault rather than an accidental one (with the real Confederate operational plan being to outflank Malvern and surround it) - acceptable given it's a game about battling - but it states in so many words that you (as the Confederates) are trying to catch McClellan just before he leaves the Peninsula having decided to abandon it. It gets the timing of the retreat from the Peninusla wrong by a month and a half and attributes it to McClellan instead of Halleck.

It wouldn't have been hard to get it right. Just say that McClellan's retreating to a position further away from Richmond instead and that this is your "last chance" to damage his army before he's out of danger / your last rearguard action, then open the battles of the Second Bull Run chapter by saying the Union is retreating from the Peninsula.
Even in a thread about games you can't resist justifying McClellan's actions and blaming someone else for McClellan's faults. It would be sad if it wasn't hilarious.
 
Even in a thread about games you can't resist justifying McClellan's actions and blaming someone else for McClellan's faults.
What? It's a matter of verifiable fact that McClellan did not decide to retreat off the Peninsula on the first of July. It happens that I spotted this error because it's a field I'm interested in (and I was already a bit annoyed they sort of conflated Mechanicsville and Gaines Mill) but it doesn't change that it is an error in both the intention of McClellan and the timing of the retreat.
 
Yes, that's also true. I remember being a bit baffled about why the Confederate army needed to assault the entire Washington perimeter (and for that matter why Fort Circle had shrunk) and being very confused about why an enormous Union army had (1) been completely absent during the approach and (2) had then surrounded Washington completely but felt the need to assault.
 
What? It's a matter of verifiable fact that McClellan did not decide to retreat off the Peninsula on the first of July. It happens that I spotted this error because it's a field I'm interested in (and I was already a bit annoyed they sort of conflated Mechanicsville and Gaines Mill) but it doesn't change that it is an error in both the intention of McClellan and the timing of the retreat.
And what difference does it make in a game forum whether McClellan or Halleck made the decision to retreat? That is my point. It's like the old saw about how stupid our pre-historic ancestors were to think the sun orbited the earth rather than the other way round - the point being, the sky would have looked exactly the same! A game would look exactly the same whether Mac or Old Brains made the decision.
 
And what difference does it make in a game forum whether McClellan or Halleck made the decision to retreat? That is my point.
Because it perpetuates a misunderstanding when there's no reason to do so.

A game would look exactly the same whether Mac or Old Brains made the decision.
Well, it'd look slightly different - the flavour text for the mission would be different, specifically. But there's literally no reason to have the text the way it is instead of the correct way.

It's an unforced error with no reason behind it.
 
I'm disappointed the developers moved on with many historical battles not in the game and some of the battles in the game pretty much in name only.

A scenario editor could have at least partly solved that, giving us additional historical battles by dedicated fans and some interesting What If scenarios. I don't think I've heard of one in the works though.

Nevertheless, I enjoy the game. I was just replaying the historical version of Chickamauga since I've been reading about the battle. I've played that battle several times on both sides, but never gotten to the third day with Longstreet's assault - always either win outright or get a draw. That would have been a good inclusion as a scenario.
 
Because it perpetuates a misunderstanding when there's no reason to do so.


Well, it'd look slightly different - the flavour text for the mission would be different, specifically. But there's literally no reason to have the text the way it is instead of the correct way.

It's an unforced error with no reason behind it.
And how would the correction change the way the game is played? Is the player going to make different moves based on the correction?
 
And how would the correction change the way the game is played? Is the player going to make different moves based on the correction?
As I have already stated, the problem that I have with it is that it is an unforced error. It has about as much gameplay effect as if one of the info boxes had said Grant was roaring drunk on the field at Spotsylvania, but it's just as wrong.
 
Back
Top