Before I buy I have a few concerns.

[Gwack]

First let me say what a thrill to see a new Gettysburg game offered. I have been a humble student of the battle for over thirty years and have always hoped to finally find the definitive game/sim to enjoy. Where as I realize no game/sim can be perfect, or replicate this battle in complete accuracy-I am a tad disappointed and concerned by what I see in the tutorial. The devs were astute enough to include a lot of detail on the map that is missed by a mile in other games/sims. Such as the Bliss farm with its orchard and wheat field running with it's approximate fences to the Emmitsburg road. The Rose farm with it's often neglected lane running east to the Wheatfield. The Triangular Field with it's wood fence on the east boarder joining the stone walls that complete the fencing. Most always that would be mistakenly placed as a stone wall, as it is today. I agree that it was most likely a wooden fence (a point still debated today).

Yes, lots of neat detail showing the devs did their homework with some loving care. But then....I see a white house at the south-west tip of the Wheatfield..with a tree growing right out of the center of it no less. There was no building ever there and it sticks out like a sore thumb. The famous "angle" with the copse of trees is done pretty well. But there is an important wood fence missing running north from the angle of the stone wall that needs to be represented.

What is with the blobs of stone placed all around the map where there were none? A few designate some kind of rocky/rough ground accurately, and again I applaud the detail. But quite a few should not be there. I keep looking around the map at times really appreciating the details often missed by other efforts; and then shake my head at other things in disappointment.

Units are another problem. Take the regimental strengths. While some are within an acceptable range, some are way off. Take Meredith's Iron Brigade for an example. The 19th Indiana is given 465 men and the 24th Michigan is given 384 or so. This is backwards. On June 30th, the 19th Indiana had 339 men (30+309). It's engaged strength has been thought to be around 308. The 24th Michigan on June 30th had 511 men (32+479) and an engaged strength of 496 (28+468).

Picky? Ok..for you maybe..but I am from Michigan and would love to command the famous 24th Michigan at it's correct strength. In fact, when I command any regiments in a game/sim about Gettysburg, I would hope to have their strengths at least approximately close to correct.

The AI is a bit wonky at times. For an example, I had a cavalry HQ of 20 men make a suicide charge at a regiment of over 300 men. They were decimated, of course, and that all was immediately followed up by the HQ officer charging the same infantry and was promptly shot and killed.

May I ask any of you folks who have unlocked the game, and know the battlefield and battle, what your take is on it's accuracy and devotion to historical detail? Also, I see mention of an editor. Can we edit the units and the map too? I would love to buy this, but I am concerned it is a mix of accuracy and glaring errors that will detract from any enjoyment of playing it.

[ADukes]

I'm sure that one of the mapper will chime in to talk about your concerns about the map.

Gwack wrote:

Units are another problem. Take the regimental strengths. While some are within an acceptable range, some are way off. Take Meredith's Iron Brigade for an example. The 19th Indiana is given 465 men and the 24th Michigan is given 384 or so. This is backwards. On June 30th, the 19th Indiana had 339 men (30+309). It's engaged strength has been thought to be around 308. The 24th Michigan on June 30th had 511 men (32+479) and an engaged strength of 496 (28+468).

Picky? Ok..for you maybe..but I am from Michigan and would love to command the famous 24th Michigan at it's correct strength. In fact, when I command any regiments in a game/sim about Gettysburg, I would hope to have their strengths at least approximately close to correct.

That's just the case in the 2nd tutorial, both regiments have their real strengths (308/496) in the GB scenarios.

Also, I see mention of an editor. Can we edit the units and the map too?

You can edit units, etc. as soon as we release the SDK (technically it's already possible), but I'm not sure yet if there will be a map editor.

[norb]

I am not the person to debate the maps, but they were researched with great care. I would put my money on our maps guys for building locations, etc. But we shall see, they are at work now, but they will be here and we'll see.

btw - most of the people that care about this battle are very picky, you are not alone. If you are going to put the name Gettysburg in the title of your game, then you had better make sure that you do it right! So please ask away and hold off until you are satisfied.

As ADukes said, the demo does not come with historical scenarios, in those scenarios unit strength is 100% accurate on the normal setting.

The map settings that you choose effect the blobs of stone. You'll have to be able to turn up all your settings to see the map correctly. For slower computers we offer those options so that people can still play without spending a fortune to upgrade their boxes. You need map objects on best and to display 100% of terrain objects to see it correctly.

[Jim]

Good catch on the incorrect barn at the SW corner of the Wheatfield. We will remove that one as part of the patch.

For the maps overall, we used the Warren 1867 map as our base and supplemented with 'The Maps of GB' and a few tweaks from the Laino atlas after it came out. We also adjusted based on info from people on the boards who could provide some evidence of where we needed to adjust something.

For the unit strengths we used Busey and Martin as our base data and then adjusted to account for casualties. We made our best estimates of intermediate casualty levels, your mileage may vary.

As soon as we get the SDK out you will be able to mod your own OOBs to suit yourself. There will not be a map editor any time soon for business reasons.

-Jim

[Gwack]

I am very impressed. Three informative responses from the developers themselves! This clearly shows the men involved not only know what they are doing, but they also have a real desire to be connected to their customers.

To anyone reading this thread: I am buying this game and you should give serious consideration to do the same. I think we are in good hands.

"Up men and to your posts!"

[norb]

Guess I put my money on the wrong horse. Great catch Gwack!

[UglyElmo]

You can send me your wager now Norb . . . I KNEW Gwack was right all along! :whistle:

[Kerflumoxed]

Gwack wrote:

I am very impressed. Three informative responses from the developers themselves! This clearly shows the men involved not only know what they are doing, but they also have a real desire to be connected to their customers.

To anyone reading this thread: I am buying this game and you should give serious consideration to do the same. I think we are in good hands.

"Up men and to your posts!"

Norb and the rest of the team members have always responded to queries over the past sever months with professionalism and a willingness to explain decisions. That does go a long way to recommending this game! Although I haven't purchased the new game as I await my new computer (undergoing final "burn" today at the factory) I can see many improvements, many suggested by the forum membership. (Now, about the Skirmishers???) Great job!

J :woohoo:

[parmenio]

Gwack wrote:

I think we are in good hands.

I, for one, knew we were already

[Kerflumoxed]

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Gwack wrote:

I am very impressed. Three informative responses from the developers themselves! This clearly shows the men involved not only know what they are doing, but they also have a real desire to be connected to their customers.

To anyone reading this thread: I am buying this game and you should give serious consideration to do the same. I think we are in good hands.

"Up men and to your posts!"

Norb and the rest of the team members have always responded to queries over the past sever months with professionalism and a willingness to explain decisions. That does go a long way to recommending this game! Although I haven't purchased the new game as I await my new computer (undergoing final "burn" today at the factory) I can see many improvements, many suggested by the forum membership. (Now, about the Skirmishers???) Great job!

J :woohoo:

Correction: Have purchased the game, thanks to the better half, and just waiting for the CODE!

J