Panzeh

There are strict maximums on TW army sizes but it doesn't result in interesting tactical battles or help the strategic game. It's not a thing that needs to mix.

Honestly, I don't believe a strategic map should be added- tactical games should be tactical games, strategic games should be strategic games, the mix tends to water down the design- the strategy layer can't have combat really tuned to integrate other elements of the game, and the tactical game has far less interesting battles as the goal of a strategic layer is to create completely unequal tactical situations. I do hope to see the campaign able to incorporate random maps and more randomized scenarios rather than a series of battles that are the same every time. The exact period of the game doesn't bother me so much- I wouldn't mind either the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars, though I believe these wars would focus less on weaponry, and that's fine with me.

The idea that a computer game where you command men on a screen from a vantage point better than anything we can do today is something that could be called "realistic" is flatly ridiculous. There are complaints that this game does not allow enough flexibility for maneuver, but you have to draw a line somewhere in any design. Why can't I fall back on Pipe Creek as Meade? Why can't I just ignore Lee and march to Richmond in the knowledge that Lee will have to come down soon enough anyway? Oh, wait, maybe you should think things through? Grognards want every game to be about everything, bloated messes like World in Flames. A lot of battles that appear evenly matched end up being extremely poor in terms of gameplay when a player who has a wargamer's perspective(e.g. seeing everything of relevance in the perfect vantage point with perfect command) takes one side in it. Also, grognards often have bizarre ideas of what really happened and the idea that all of your prejudices with respect to history should be entertained is utterly insane. Make the best game you can within the history of the moment. I do think this game does not handle Buford's scenario well and I think it leaves a bad impression to show one of the weakest scenarios as the one every player sees first. When both sides have a significant number of brigades, the game really opens up and becomes interesting.

Seems like Reed here wants an entirely different game. Honestly, having the entirety of Gettysburg with every unit involved at your command would probably be a total mess. There was a scenario like that in Sid Meier's Gettysburg! but it was a mess to try to keep track of all those regiments. There's a limited amount of attention and time available to a game that purports to be good in MP, and good in chunks smaller than whole evenings. Also, LOL at the idea that wargames from the 70s and 60s have much to offer. I've seen a lot of them, and they're total dreck. Even the 80s is full of crap. Modern wargames, CDGs, hex and counter wargames, all of them are so much better designed. Guns of Gettysburg is probably the most interesting treatment of the battle i've ever seen in a wargame.