The map, what do you think?

[David Fair]

Kenichinsfs,

I've walked the entire Gettysburg battlefield many times over many decades in all seasons.  The picture you've attached is looking at the west slope of Little Round Top from the rise behind and a bit to the right side (south side) of Devil's Den.  The terrain around the Round Tops area is not typical of the entire battlefield.  Most of the Gettysburg area (where the battle was fought) at that time was, in fact, rolling fields with 0.5 to 1 meter field stone walls around the perimeter of many of the fields.  The Devil's Den topographical feature is unique to the battlefield.  There are some small rock outcroppings near Oak Hill; but nothing like a cliff.  Topographically the area is dominated by rolling Pennsylvania farm land.   

Area around Pitzer's Run

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1476&bih=897&q=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&oq=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&gs_l=img.3...1575.8408.0.8658.23.10.0.13.13.0.187.780.9j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..13.10.780.Uk-L2BIuxQ4#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=WxN80z8z2lPDoM%3A%3BwkfrifsG_q8tZM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Flibriscrowe.com%252FGettysburg%252FDSCN0799.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Flibriscrowe.com%252FGettysburg%252Fgburg4.htm%3B500%3B375

 

Note in your picture the line of stone walls in the upper right corner.  This was roughly the position of Union 3rd Brigade, 1st Division, V Corps, Army of the Potomac, (Strong Vincent's Brigade (including the 20th Maine)).

 

The area between Culp's Hill and Benner's Hill along Rock Creek does have some swampy areas but these wet areas are often dry and solid in the summer months.  I don't know that the ground would support the weight of a cannon in 1863 over some of this lower terrain; but my guess is that it would be slow going with artillery.  There are areas along Rock Creek that are swampy in fall through spring (e.g., Spangler's Spring).  These wet areas might have been militarily relevant if the area around Wolf's Hill (west of Culp's Hill along Rock Creek) had been contested in any season but summer.  

 

Plum run for example is not much of an obstacle:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1476&bih=897&q=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&oq=Pitzer%27s+run+gettysburg&gs_l=img.3...1575.8408.0.8658.23.10.0.13.13.0.187.780.9j1.10.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..13.10.780.Uk-L2BIuxQ4#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=j61orxJlhKBwxM%3A%3B55kpB-77LxYOcM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgettysburg.stonesentinels.com%252FPlaces%252FResources%252FPlumRun_4692.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fgettysburg.stonesentinels.com%252FPlaces%252FResources%252F%3B685%3B514

 

The structures around Gettysburg are predominately small wooden farm houses.  You might get a couple of sharpshooters in a top floor window; but militarily these buildings were irrelevant. I'm not aware of any accounts that the houses around Gettysburg were occupied as fortified strong points.  The Seminary is a substantial structure and some the small houses in Gettysburg are brick.  But again, the Seminary tower was used as an observation point not as a fortification.

[kenichinsfs]

David Fair,

 

The pictures I showed was to show the terrain needed to be apply in the map. Even though it will be just a small difference, it still gives a small impact on what will be the tactics of the player. Whether the rocky type of terrain would be an advantage or disadvantage to him. And the purpose of the map was to show where was Little Round Top Located. And of course, that goes with the swamp too. I'm not saying that the fight took a major place in that map, I'm just showing the location of Little Round Top.

 

No offense, but in my point of view. Even if how many times you walked in a place that happen a century ago, you can never tell if the exact terrain of that place is still the same. Especially when you know that place is already populated with a lot of people. Well except if that is a historical landmark, or something. Which is in Gettysburg, not the whole Gettysburg or either the other places that took place in the war, is a historical landmark. We never know that some may happen to interfere that certain place that changed the outlook of it from a century ago.

 

Since this game is all about the war of Gettysburg in America, and since this is a RTS Game. While of course, controlling your units were to defend or attack (Most probably the game will be, since this is a 3 day war.). You may have the option to either follow what really happen in history, or follow your own tactics in mind. Even if the game will follow some parts of the Battle of Gettysburg, anything can still be change that depends on the player. But of course, I might go wrong since this game is still on developing. But on my idea, this is the most propable idea that they will make. Since the the group of DarthMod (creator of mods in TW) is in it.

 

That means, the whole garrison inside the building thing... Should be allowed, since this is a RTS Game. Sure, as I also have not heard any accounts that the houses around Gettysburg were occupied as fortified strong points. It still can provide as at least a small cover, in a war. Logically speaking, if you were a general in that situation. Will you at least, send a small unit inside a building to provide a greater defense? Well for me yes. Even if it's made out of wood, yet has a small benefit. But again, it always depends on the developers.

 

But thanks for the info though. Made me realize some important things to remember.

[llcw08]

As for a LOS battle map; at Gettysburg in 1863 there were plenty of high points overlooking the area. Gen. Buford used the tower of the seminary on Seminary Ridge the morning of day one. On the 2nd day of battle, General Longstreet had to backtrack and reroute his troops to their attack posistion, because they were spotted by the Union Army’s semaphore post from Little Round Top.

 

Gen. Meade had pretty good tactical intel during the battle. Gen. Lee had to run on guts and intuition for most of those 4 days.

 

 

The map looks great but knowing the topography over the next hill is a huge advantage historical leaders seldom enjoyed. Military balloons were employed during the Civil War to help reduce this problem; but, at Gettysburg neither side deployed balloons during the battle. I'd almost like to see the LOS control how much of the map I can see. This puts recon at a premium. Additionally, it makes Jeb Stuart relevant/critical and why Lee needed him during the early days of the battle.

See: "Why military balloons were not used at Gettysburg"
http://www.yorkblog.com/cannonball/2011/12/31/military-ballooning-at-the-january-harrisburg-civil-war-round-table/

[llcw08]

The idea of natural and manmade map features interacting with how a battle evolves is very cool.

 

During Pickett’s Charge the Union guns knocked some holes in the high spilt rail fence along the Emmetsburg Road. The charging 12 thousand Confederate troops did not “bulldoze” that tall fence; they Lined Up to go through the Holes! They were under the Close fire of the Union guns. Historians have found a lot of battle debris on that side of Emmetsburg Road.

 

I also like the idea of being able to see where the peak of a ridge is. Perhaps some shading or shadows on the terrain map would lead to the Player to intuitively know where the peak is.

 

As for officers in the field knowing what a military crest is and using it or not; that is part of the ‘dance’ of battle.

Gen. Sickles left the position Gen. Meade assigned him on Seminary Ridge and took up disastrous positions in “The Bloody Wheatfield”. Later that day, Col. Joshua Chamberlain left his position, and successfully led one of the few bayonet charges of the war down Little Round Top. He was ordered to hold his position “to the last man”. Both men received the Medal of Honor for their actions that day.

 

Thoughts on the stunning Gettysburg map:

The rock walls on the battlefield played a key role in defensive positions.  It would be great if these man made defensive positions were included on the map.  

 

One of the challenges will be positioning troops on the map to take optimal tactical advantage of the terrain features.  For example, if I want my troops on the military crest of the hill (defense) vs. the topographical crest (observation), vs. the reverse slope (stealth/surprise/safety) to keep them out of sight or out of cannon range how can I tell when I've got them in the desired position?  

 

Historically regimental officers served this role to ensure troop dispositions conformed with orders.  The Colonel would scope out the ground then deploy appropriately.  Longstreet's orders to keep his troops out of sight caused hours of delay in getting his Corps in position at Gettysburg.  

 

Terrain is a fantastic opportunity for game innovation.  If the terrain had designations when I was giving commands I could select how my troops would deploy upon arrival at destination.  

Example:

I click and drag a command to Culp's Hill.  As the cursor hovers over Culp's Hill the map highlights "attack" if the position is enemy occupied.  If the terrain is unoccupied then I get the choice of "defense", "observation", or "stealth".  When my troops reach the destination they deploy according to my orders.  If the troops encounter opposition they fight according to their move orders. Units moving should be under orders to assault, attack, probe, or fall back engaged.

 

This combination of how aggressively to move to location plus how to deploy upon arrival comes very close to civil war regimental orders.  My suspicion is that this can be creatively accomplished in a click and drag format.  Famously it was Lee's order to Ewell to take Culp's Hill, "if practical" that established the Union defensive positions.  Had Ewell been ordered to take the hill "at all hazard" the Union defensive positions at Gettysburg might have been shattered late on Day 1.

 

If any of you enthusiasts have implementation thoughts it would be interesting to see you ideas on how troops should interface with the map terrain.

[Crowgasm]

I also love the art style here. It very much reminds me of Sid Meier's Railroads! which was one of my favorite pick-up and play games. The LOS vs FOW choices also seem sound, given the scale and map design. The more I read on this the more I want it in my Steam basket. 

[adambomb]

Map looks great. I hope we can have many different battles with this map generator.

[Riekopo]

I like how the names of the terrain are on the map. One thing I might suggest is that the game have different map modes like Paradox games like Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Universalis IV. Another thing is that the edges of the map instead of being black could be shrouded in mist or could look like an old map. Maybe be extensions of the battle map.

[Remise]

This comment is somewhat relevant to terrain, but also to gameplay and things you  may not be able to change.

 

Civil War officers and soldiers did not like street fighting, any more than soldiers today do.  Back then, without the benefit of radios, and with a need to keep troops close together and in formation, it was impossible to control a regiment, much less a brigade, in urban combat.  Although there was some fighting on the first day, as the Federals retreated through the town, you will note that for the most part, nobody made a stand there, and on the second and third days, other than some annoying sniper fire, the town was not that involved. 

 

This is significant, as you would have imagined that, if possible, Lee would have formed up his assault columns for the third day in the town, so they could, for example, make a rush at Cemetery Hill without being exposed to artillery fire. But this thought apparently never occurred to anybody, not because they were not smart enough, but because they realized the command and control issues this would present.

 

Secondly, although in playing the second day test scenario it seems that Federal artillery is firing into the town (I could be wrong about this), in reality that would never have happened. Not only would the Federal artillerists never have fired upon friendly civilian dwellings, after Fredericksburg, when they had battered the Confederate town because of snipers, they were strongly condemned as barbaric for firing upon civilian homes, and I strongly suspect that there were, if not written, unwritten orders, against this.

Finally -- and maybe I missed this -- is there a topic for general typos? In particular, I noticed that the name of the hero of Culp's Hill -- General George Greene -- is missing an "e" at the end.

[SgtGrunt]

The map looks excellent and I can't wait to try my turn at "What If?"

 

One of the key features I'd like to see incorporated into the game is the importance of Skirmishers for Infantry and Cavalry. They were the eyes and ears for the Regiments and Troops. I feel that a units skirmisher status, (i.e. deployed, gone to ground or recalled) should be reflected in how far and to what degree a unit has spotting. Likewise Artillery Spotters. Also, factoring into LoS ability, I feel that level/ability of command and unit quality/experience should factor in. 

[Remise]

The map looks excellent and I can't wait to try my turn at "What If?"

 

One of the key features I'd like to see incorporated into the game is the importance of Skirmishers for Infantry and Cavalry. They were the eyes and ears for the Regiments and Troops. I feel that a units skirmisher status, (i.e. deployed, gone to ground or recalled) should be reflected in how far and to what degree a unit has spotting. Likewise Artillery Spotters. Also, factoring into LoS ability, I feel that level/ability of command and unit quality/experience should factor in. 

I mostly agree with the above. A man who is lying prone cannot see far at a place like Gettysburg, even without as many trees as we have today, as even foot-high grass makes any real visibility unlikely -- plus the smoke of battle would quickly obscure even the most open field. There were veterans of the war who, years later, wrote that all they ever saw of the enemy was from the knees down, due to the smoke.

 

There were -- at least so far as I know -- never any real artillery spotters as are known today.  It was more that the battery commander and gunners would do their best to witness the fall of the shot (as it was called), and adjust fire accordingly.  Having said that, I absolutely agree that experience had a lot to do with this.  Ditto with musketry itself. Both sides tended to fire too high with all weapons, and that, combined with the poorly cut Confederate artillery fuses and bad powder, could make artillery, in particular, far less deadly to the enemy than those behind the guns might imagine.  This certainly happened on the third day!

[David Fair]

General Hunt, U.S. Commander AOP Artillery, and General Meade both reprimanded artillery officers for firing too fast, especially when visibility was obscured by smoke from the previous round. Hunt schooled and ordered his men to reserve ammunition with "deliberate fire" which was one round every five minutes per gun. Hunt believed that aimed "deliberate fire" that was not obscured by smoke was 10X more effective (Hunt's stated metric was, "5 rounds of "deliberate fire" is equal to 50 rounds"). Note that deliberate fire also allowed the battery to fire for a full day without coming off the line due to exhausting the battery's ammunition supply.

The limited range of guns, LOS firing, limited communications, and lack of indirect fire doctrine (mathematics for indirect fire was invented in the Civil War; but was exclusively used on large targets such as cities or fortifications) made any formal artillery spotter establishment unnecessary.

[OzWally]

Very nice!

 

Will maps also rotates?

[dagdamor1]

Not exactly a question about the map, but about something that would interact with the boundaries of it.

 

Are the arrivals of reinforcements going to be scripted or will they also be variable depending on performance and actions taken on the battlefield?

 

For example, a message to one of the Generals advancing on the battlefield to make haste could prompt the arrival of his troops earlier than historically, but at the cost of a measure of morale and/or fatigue.

[adambomb]

I want more, lol.. Great work, just need a little more like a hour long video about the game with some game play also.

[79Maliboo]

I have not played this in beta, but from watching the video and referencing my memory of hundreds of hours of Sid Meiers Gettysburg (of which the map looks like an slightly exagerated and updated version) I can say there are some substantial variations from the actual terrain of the battlefield.  I go to Gettysburg at a minimum of one weekend a year and have spent many a day on the battlefield.  One of the things that I have never liked about Gettysburg terrain maps of any game or mod is that while the main features of the map are relatively accurate, the small undulations in terrain are missing.  Some of which play a huge factor in the battle as it was.  For instance: during my warm up of the 2013 (150th anniversary) visit season I wanted to explore a new area that I felt I have been overlooking through most of my visits, and what played out in my mind's eye as relatively flat sloping terrain. That was the avenue of advance of Barksdale's brigade on July 2nd and the reasoning for the seemingly odd deployment (from bird's eye view) of union artillery under Clark, Hart, Thompson, Phillips, and Bigelow.  From other vantage points on the battlefield the terrain looks straightforward as well.  It's not until you get onto their position that you see the protective cover of their right flanks (except Thompson) and front by low rises in elevation and the open field of fire they had along the left flank of the entirety of both Hood's and McClaws' divisions.  

 

I understand that the scale you're working with may not provide you the ability to be as detail oriented as I would prefer, however my theory on single map RTS's is that they should be as detailed as possible to keep the interest of the player to find new ways to deploy troops, etc. And quite frankly the terrain, the buildings, the coloring, the movement, all feels very circa 1997.  The other thing I would add about scale, is that the troop size to field ratio is superhuman and somewhat detracts from the immersion aspect.

 

My $0.02 

 

I wish you the best with the game and hopefully it becomes a franchise.  I would purchase a copy either way, just to put myself in the shoes of Lee or Meade for another hour.

 

Would love to see Chancellorsville as well. (you could have done 3-4 major battles off of that one map).

 

 

David Fair,

 

...

 

No offense, but in my point of view. Even if how many times you walked in a place that happen a century ago, you can never tell if the exact terrain of that place is still the same. Especially when you know that place is already populated with a lot of people. Well except if that is a historical landmark, or something. Which is in Gettysburg, not the whole Gettysburg or either the other places that took place in the war, is a historical landmark. We never know that some may happen to interfere that certain place that changed the outlook of it from a century ago.

 

...

 

You are correct.  In fact the Gettysburg Parks Service call it a "Memorial Field" rather than a battlefield.  Granted the field has been used, visited, farmed, billeted on, subject to urban sprawl, hell even tanks practiced on the field before being deployed in WWI.  However the field in certain areas isn't as damaged as other areas, and unlike Waterloo (ie. lion's mound situation), it still has most of the pieces of the puzzle on the field offering a tactical perspective.  I have seen the Gettysburg Battlefield cited multiple times as the most well preserved battlefield in the world.

[David Fair]

Terrain is very tricky.  When the target for the game is a tablet many compromises are made.  There are many, many, many details in games that are not "accurate".  What would getting the map more "perfect" add? 

 

79Maliboo out of curiosity would you be so kind as to offer insight into these "huge factors" these "substantial variations" in terrain caused at Gettysburg?

 

We know that during Pickett's charge CSA troops on the left flank were covered by an undulation.  Once they were out of harm's way they refused to advance any further.  That undulation exists today.  Is it on the UGG map?  Nope.  Is this a "huge factor"?  Debatable.

 

I'm confused by your presentation.  Are your arguing to make the ground more generically undulating?

 

Are you advocating using the battlefield as is exists today for these undulations?

 

Alternatively are you advocating using history to understand the undulations on the battlefield as it existed in 1863? 

 

I'll take exception now to kenichinsfs statement from December 6.  Gettysburg was surveyed in detail shortly after the battle by many of the officers who fought in the battle (e.i., A. Pleasonton). There are fantastic and highly detailed maps of every stone wall and their precise location at Gettysburg.  Undulations were mapped and if you were willing to peruse these maps you could validate how much topographical shift has happened in the past 150+ years.  Were mistakes made in the late 1860's surveys?  Certainly - but surveying is a very precise science and errors that were made are likely not substantive.  Has the battlefield changed since 1863?  Certainly.  

 

At Antietam there was a recent study of the battlefield to understand why Antietam was so bloody.  Their conclusion was that the undulations on that battlefield allowed troops to get almost to point blank range.  The baseline for this study was comparing and contrasting Gettysburg where undulations offered less protection.

 

If there are more games in this series and they include Antietam should the undulations be in the Antietam game or the Gettysburg game?

 

It seems you are setting an awfully high bar for the development team given some of the other tradeoffs.

[79Maliboo]

While the rolling fields of antietam offer a better case for anecdotal evidence; instances such as the afformentioned positioning of 3rd corps artillery would put them in a position for musket fire on their flanks on a flat battle map.

I understand the scope of the game is such that this type of detail may not be practical but thats just my personal preference.

[David Fair]

Thanks for sharing your perspective!  

 

If the flat terrain puts the artillery "in the position for musket fire on their flanks" isn't it also true that the artillery has an open field of fire on the flanking infantry that should not exist if the ground were undulating?  

 

Terrain at first glance seems like a "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" relationship.  In fact rolling terrain favors infantry rather than the direct fire artillery of the American Civil War.  Terrain features obscure fields of fire for artillery; but provide cover for infantry.  Your argument is interesting because it might help explain why artillery casualties during the Civil War were between 6% and 8% of the battlefield casualties inflicted.  The rifled musket was the dominant force of the Civil War inflicting >90% of the battlefield casualties - very likely because the terrain of America is rarely flat.

 

My limited understanding of the Civil War suggests that the key vulnerability for artillery, that was not supported with friendly infantry, was that enemy infantry attacked in skirmish order.  This prevented the artillery from having a concentrated target.  First-hand artillery accounts describe this problem as "trying to shoot mosquitoes with a rifle".  Bigelow's battery was infiltrated by skirmishers who shot down the battery's horses by rebel infantry, "standing on the limbers".  Bigelow attempted to address the skirmisher problem by deploying his guns in an arc; but without infantry support his battery was doomed and overrun.

 

Note that in the 1861 and 1864 edition of the "Artillerist's Manual" artillery that is not supported with infantry is recommended to limber to the rear for infantry support.  

[David Fair]

79Maliboo,

 

Just back from 2 days in Gettysburg.  My primary interest was to take another look at how Smith's Battery (4th New York Independent) managed to get into the position where it was captured.  Running ammunition up to these guns must have been a chore.  General Hunt predicted that Smith would lose his guns - and of course he did.

 

Also I took a 6' bike flag with me and ran some experiments on the gun positions you highlighted in your 16 April post.  My goal was to follow the path of Barksdale to see how close I could get to the flag before I could see the flag.  I played around with a 100 yard front and 150 yard front for the advance.  As you point out above the undulations make an interesting study on both fields of artillery fire and cover for infantry.  The terrain makes an interesting study motivating skirmisher tactics against artillery.  

 

The other aspect I looked at was fields of fire from supporting batteries on Cemetery Hill.  While most games allow you to plop artillery just about anywhere and blaze away; in reality it is much more difficult to find a great artillery positions with unrestricted fields of fire.  The fields of fire for all 6 guns of Hazlett's Battery on Little Round Top was very limited and it would have been difficult to get any more than 6 guns in position.  It was nearly impossible to work guns on sloped terrain.

 

The key lesson from this trip with my flag was even if you get permission at Park HQ you still attract significant attention from Park Officials when you post a 6' flag in the ground at Gettysburg.

[N.C.rebel]

The map looks great looking forward to playing this can't wait, but will you make it to where the men when running through town aren't running through the buildings?

[N.C.rebel]

And can also add fences Emmitsburg Road looks weird without them lol considering the confederates had that as an obstacle on day 3.