Gettysburg: The Tide Turns

Beautiful map. Fluid and exciting game play. Some surprises.

A conditional recommendation... the game is unfinished and will remain so forever, which is a shame. It is playable, and rather enjoyable - but be aware the campaign is glitchy, the text is a mess of formatting and punctuation errors, the AI is unimpressive (verging on broken), etc etc.

Here's the reason for the positive recommendation: the game is worth a few dollars on sale, just to admire the absolutely stunning period map, and the fabulous way the units move and line themselves up in Civil War battle lines. It's mesmerizingly great art!

And on gameplay: I find the game is actually best played head-to-head - either against another human (hotseat), or playing both sides as a historical what-if simulation. Played in this way, it is actually very engaging and the disappointing AI isn't an issue.

Love the look of the game, and I really want the kind of game they tried to make here.

Unfortunately, it is buggy to the point of being almost unplayable. Games irrecoverably freeze far more often than they are completed.

I really wanted to like this game. Unfortunate that I do not.

It's a hex-and-counter wargame. I like hex and counter wargames but this is so simplistic and unrealistic as regards actual battlefield operations in the civil war as to be purely bizarre. It has value as an abstract strategy game, i suppose, but not even too much at that. There are wonderful paper map hex-and-counter Gettysburg games that add interesting mechanics, decisions that reflect actual operational and tactical considerations of the time, any of which is actually available more or less free using the freeware program VASSAL and downloading the appropriate module. This game is simply uninteresting and overly simplistic. Boring.

Easy to learn,fun, fast moving,board game style(Avalon Hill) but the computer does all the work the player just makes the decsisions.It is also educational.I like the unceartainty of the movement & combat system.I'd like to see some other Civil War battle games with similar rules!I would recomend this game to anyone who is interested in the American Civil War.I think that another level of difficulty would be nice because I noticed the A.I. occasionaly moves brigades that should stay put and heal or attacks at poor odds. I look forward to playing a human opponet.It would also be better if leaders are introduced.

Excellent and addictive turn based-tactical strategy civil war game! The map is BEAUTIFUL and really makes the game! This game looks incredible with the bold red and blue colors of the units on top of a hand-drawn battle map. It's like you are playing a war game inside of a Civil War Atlas. More strategy games need to do what Shenandoah Studies did with GETTYSBURG: THE TIDE TURNS. I can't say enough good things about how this game looks.

The game itself is easy to learn but is challenging and keeps me playing way longer than I intended. It's fun to watch the randomized turns which adds chaos to the battle which simulates how the battle progressed in real life. There are a couple of minor cosmetic bugs (artillery targeting arrows somtimes wont dissppear after comitting the bombardment, and the map shifts back suddenly when selecting a new unit in the shorter zoomed in scenarios) but the bugs that people have complained about have been patched out. Also, I think having the units follow their selected paths to their new hex would be a nice touch instead of gliding over in a direct path.

To Shenandoah Studios: This is the type of game casual and early strategy gamers are looking for! History buffs like myself want to control units on a beautiful map like this that is user friendly. I would love to see more maps and more scenarios with full customized victory tiles. I would love to see an Antietam, Chickamuaga, and Shiloh become available. Additionally, I think that you can and SHOULD pull off a World War 1: Schlieffen Plan game modeled right after this game (why isn't there a strategy game based on the first German advance on Paris in 1914 before trench warefare??).

Highly recommend to new strategy gamers and casual gamers who want to enjoy a beautiful map with beautiful units. Best 10 bucks I've spent all year.

Amazing game! I would recommend it to others. I always play as the confederates because it is harder to win as them even though I am glad the union won and definitely would have fought for the Union had i loved back then. My history professor said a confederate win at Gettysburg would have forced the union to the negotiating table. What do you think?

As a veteran wargamer and a fan of the Civil war, I wanted to see how the Battle Hymn Vol.1 boardgame could be adpated on computer.
I must say that the basic mechanics of the boardgame are nicely put into pixels : the map is beautiful, the chit system is the same, the movement and combat systems are very similar.
BUT
The AI is terrible. During my first game (Day1) as CSA, I could easily grab 2 objectives near Little Round Top 5 turns before the end. Then the computer (with max AI !!!) only seemed to optimise its defensive positions around Cemetery Hill, and absolutely neglected to counterattack despite big local numerical advantage and the certainty of defeat if staying passive.

Big potential, but AI needs to be drastically upgraded.

Unfortunately, though this seems like a good entry-level game with a lot of potential, the freezing bugs that constantly plague even the current patch of the game make this a pass. I've yet to get through the 33 turn campaign because it just freezes. Multiplayer PBEM suffers the same problem, usually at turn 11.

Too bad because the game play is a good starter wargame otherwise.

Eric Lee Smith designed an excellent boardgame covering five battles of American Civil War way back in 1992. The game was called Across Five Aprils, published by one of the wargaming heavyweights, Victory Games. Across Five Aprils was a light-weight wargame with an innovative chit-pull system for activating units. The uncertainty of chit-pulling reflected the chaos of battlefield wonderfully. One would never know if the enemy was going to pre-empt your plans by moving before you get to attack, or worse even, attack while your troops were still trying to form their lines. The system was one of my favourite ones, easy to play, exciting and very replayable. Unfortunately for reasons unknown, it never got used in other games.

What does this has to do with Gettysburg: The Tide turns, you ask? Well, this game is straight adaptation of the game system presented in A5A. And it is designed by same Eric Lee Smith - the board game took 25 years to reach computerized form. The computer version had a painful history due to original publisher Shenandoah Games not being able to bring the game out and it moved under Slitherine's umbrella. There were apparently quite a lot of technical problems getting the game finished and finally released. I'm not going to elaborate on them, other reviews and Slitherine's comments have told the story already.

All this is irrelevant to me, as Gettysburg: The Tide Turns finally brings a forgotten gem of wargaming to public reach again, and it does it very well. The rules are clear, game is easy and quick to play with varied results each time. The graphics presentation is top notch, with the living formations making a great impression on the vintage map. My only wish is that the game had born under more fortunate stars, as I would have loved to see the same game system expanded to other Civil War battles.

Tried really hard to like this but my main problem with it is the A.I. I have many times had units shattered and retreat but the A.I. refuses to move forward to destroy a shattered force. The game otherwise has been an excellent purchase but be aware that the computer opponent seems more defensive in nature and will not take the initiative when that opportunity arises.

This is a lovely little game. A board wargame at heart. Imagine being sat across the table playing someone with the computer conveniently sorting out all the rules for you. Movement, combat and morale are all dealt with seemlessly, without a table or chart in sight. (The tables and charts are there, but you just dont see them as the computer deals with the trivial for you ) It still feels a little early in development but at the price Im not complaining.

Online play works well and I havent experienced the bugs previous players are talking about. But I've actually had the most fun sat playing a live face to face game on the same pc. Probably because you can banter, mock more easily :-)

Chat mode in online multiplayer please?
Default settings have all sound switched off which is a little odd, but once id switched on the effects it felt more alive somehow ( leave the music off obviously )

I expect there will be a few patches addressing the occasional niggle but the core game works well.
A nice attempt to make a very accesible ACW.

I am a wargamer who enjoys this style of game. Let me just say for $10 this is a great deal. I have had little problems with glitches or game freexzing. The few times I had these problems the 1st patch fixed them. There are still a couple such as artillery pointed in wrong direction, artillery targeting arrows remaining on screen, etc.. I have played over 26 hours and played all scenarios twice except the campaign.

Positive:
-Game is quick and not overly complicated
-Very fun to play but can be frustrating due to mechanics
-Graphics and sound affects are solid
-Great value for the price
-Quick response from the company to address any issues which is very important

Negatives:
-Mechanics of the game with Chit Draw is iffy at best (CSA always manages to get 4 draws in a row during key turns) I like the concept but should modify where one side can only get 2 chit activations in a row. It is almost impossible for the Union to win when the CSA gets 4, 5, or 6 straight chit draws which happens all the time.
-Play balance when moving into 2 or 3rd Star difficulty level is not good. There is no change to the AI. They simply add additional strength points to your opponents units which throws off any type of realism and makes CSA units super strong (CSA already start the game off too strong) .. One suggestion for play balance is to keep the same requirements of objectives hexes held and reduce the total number on the board. This will help the Union player focus in on these key hexes. For the CSA player either add more objective hexes on the board while keeping the requirements for victory the same.
- Passage of Lines** this is my number 1 complaint with this game which makes a very good game average. Due to the chit draw moving process you are stuck with weak units on the front line holding objective hexes with fresh full strength units lined up behind them unable to move into the hex because the depleted unit is in the hex and it is not allowed to move. This should be an easy fix where a unit can simply move into any hex if occupied by a friendly unit (even if not in the same Corps) thus taking its place and the replaced unit goes to the hex the previous unit occupied thus switching hexes. It is frustrating to see the whole Union line shattered while you have a fresh Corps lined up right behind it. Maddening
- Unoppossed movement. The CSA can move directly in front of Union units in their ZOC freely with no penalty. ZOC does not exist for movement. They should either be forced to stop or defending units should be able to get a free shot at them.
-Not a real problem but the whole battle revolves around the 3 objective hexes right next to Gettysburg. Most of the CSA moves into Gettysburg with little movement towards Culps Hill or to the South toward the Round Tops.
-Even more minor is that a N (North) arrow should be on the map for simply orientation. As well as marking Devil's Den on the map due to its iconic part of the battle.


Overall I like the game and recommend it. There are several large mechanic issues with the game but for the price, quick and easy format, and most importantly it is fun, this is a great deal.

Okay, I really like Slitherine & Matrix games--as evidenced by the many I have purchased through the years. I am also a big fan of both strategic and tactical games, as well as the CW genre. And, I really want to like this game--and will likely keep investing lunch hours into it--but, at this point, there are just too many frustrations to recommend it.


Pros
----

I love the graphics and simplicity of the tactical map and unit configurations. They are reminicent of the old Avalon Hill boardgames. The way the lines form to connect is a really nice touch. It really gives the look and feel of the period.

I'm also captured by the chit draw mechanic which can really complicate trying to coordinate attacks and movements. This is esp. effective at relating some of the stress related to that particular historical battle.

I turned off the music, but I kept the sound on and wow--nice touch w/ the effects of both the guns in battle resolution as well as the tense atmosphere established during enemy movement. LOVE IT!

I like the undo feature on moves which gives you the ability to see what is likely to happen if you do this or that, and then take it back. This is esp. a needed feature given the limited tutorial help the game gives.

I appreciate the arrows which clearly indicate the likely results of combat. These do a nice job of informing you as to whether you should advance or retreat w/o complicating the visuals or taking away from the feel of the game.

I like the advance and retreat mechanics prior to and after combat.

I like the way cavalry units 'may' choose to automatically w/d before combat.

So many historical touches make this game a real gem in the realm of potential--esp. since there's a multiplayer option.


Cons
----

I have yet to finish a game due to game-breaking bugs. I have started 5 campaigns now, and been unable to complete even one of them. Granted, I started playing on the day of release. I also understand the history behind the development of this game and how Slitherine rescued this potential gem from the discarded pile. But, I haven't just his one snag--but many. I've had units that couldn't move so I couldn't finish my turn, enemy units that couldn't decide to advance so I couldn't finish their turn, combats that didn't resolve so... you guessed it... I couldn't finish a turn.

Frankly, I can't even comment on the AI or combat mechanics or balance issues, b/c I've not gotten more than 13 turns into a campaign yet. I'm still trying, b/c the game really has my eye. But, dear friends and neighbors, it's really hard to like a game when you can't finish a turn.

Now, multi-player is another issue I'd love to explore. However, I'm not excited about playing a game w/ a friend (much less a random match) when there's a good chance the game will break before we can finish. What's more, I did look online to see the lobby and see how many people might be available, and there wasn't a single person listed. Now, it is still the first week... but still... This just confirms for me that I need to come back to this in a month and see what's up then.

So, I'm at 2.8 hours game time at this point--the better part of 3 lunches in 7 days. But, I don't recommend it at this time since I can't affirm a title--even in EA--when I can't make it through a full game w/o a crash or turn locking up. BTW, you can only save when it's your move, which makes trying to do repeated saves to prevent a crash really a challenge. Additionally, the save game screen is far from simple or streamlined. It is very awkward and if you're not careful, you can go to the save screen and then click the wrong option to go back only to find you've exited your game.

If this had been released as an EA or EA Beta, I'd be sending in my feedback and cheering them on. As it is, I'm very disappointed in the state of the product at it's release. Slitherine is historically very professional and reliable in my experience, so check back in October and read the new reviews. For now, avoid the thrill of disappointment and embrace the agony of holding fast to your money until the game works.

Only played the Day 1 Scenario as the Union so far but I am not enjoying this game much at all.

The random chit pull combined with the enormous amount of territory units can move per turn just throws any strategy and tactics out the window. The enemy can potentially string together two moves and two combats without you being able to do a single thing about it, and in those two moves armies can move across what would have been miles of marching.

For example, following traditional deployments, I had placed the Union I Corps along Seminary Ridge/Oak Ridge (as my cavalry auto-retreated without firing a shot from McPherson's Ridge), and the initial units of XI Corps were positioned to the north of Gettysburg. The only enemy facing me were a few depleted brigades from Heth in the valley between McPherson's & Seminary Ridges.

Then the CSA drew an entire Corps of reinforcements which, in a single turn, went from not even being on the map AT ALL to moving down Mummasburg Road BEHIND my I Corps, one of their units even making it to Barlow's Knoll, pinning one of my depleted units.

The next chit was the CSA combat chit, which they used to obliterate my unit on Barlow's Knoll. Then the turn ended, all the chits went back in the cup.

Out next? The same CSA Corps that just arrived. They then promptly moved into Gettysburg itself, or behind my units on Oak Ridge.

Out next? CSA combat chit. Which they used to obliterate my unit on Oak Ridge.

So we went from there being NO Confederate forces on that part of the map at all, to an entire division marching in BEHIND me and attacking me from the rear, with another division marching right into town. They covered a distance of miles in the blink of an eye. Rommel couldn't have done better.

There is just WAY too much randomness, units march WAY too far in a single turn, and there is NO reason to keep units within their own command structures. Feel free to shuffle up and intermix units from different Corps as there are no reasons to maintain unit cohesion. No benefit is derived from it, and no penalty received from a lack of it.

In fact, you might be better off mixing your troops up, as all of the units from a Corps move at once regardless of where they are. So if you deploy historically with I Corps west of Gettysburg and XI Corps to the north, you may find events veering out of control in parts of the battlefield you have no control over. Whereas, if you mix them all up, you have the chance to at least move some units all over the battlefield instead of all units in one small part, which allows you to react to enemy movements better.

Seems like a terrible way to model a historical battle to me.

A absolute bargain for the price - the turn activation system keeps things tense and is a good way of reflecting the friction of command. The map is pretty and it feels like your a playing aout a step by step illustrated history of the battle.

So far have played battles from both sides and against the AI and solo with interesting and different battles every time - this is due to the way divisions (CSA) and corps (USA) can be activated and the clever gameplay mechanics.

Developer have a few bugs to squash and it would be nice to see some more scenerios perhaps with randomized map entry and arrival times.

This is not a game for dedicated wargamers, especially those with a deep familiarity with the battle of Gettysbug. There is not much to recommend; a lot against a recommendation favorable to the game. I played 2 games as the South, one lasting 24 turns and the other 16 turns, before the game hung each time. In both cases the south was on the verge of an overwhelming victory.
Here is a list of points, with full discussion of each point following the list:

Game ending freezes
Bugs
Design concept: Chits
Design concept: Victory
Design concept: No fog of war
Behavior: Artillery moves and shoots
Behavior: No fatigue
Behavior: Units move effortlessly through other formations
Behavior: Zones of control do not hinder movement as they should.

1. Game ending freezes.
In the 30 turns I played, the game froze six times. By this I mean the game stopped in the middle of an action with the wait wheel spinning. Four times I was able to resume the game by quitting to windows and the reentering the game. Twice nothing I did would resume the game.

2. Bugs.
Sometimes my infantry units would not move toward an enemy infantry unit that was within attacking range. My units were in full form without any reason to not move toward the enemy.

Design Concepts.

Chits. Without a doubt this is the main problem with the game. Each unit (division for CSA; Corps for USA) on the battle field gets one movement chit, and each army gets one battle chit. This chits are put into a "bag" at the beginning of a turn and drawn one at a time in random order. Thus the player has no control over the order in which his units move. With the exception of the battle chit a drawn chit presents a use it or lose it situation. For example,

Two divisions are in column approaching the battle field on a road. You draw the chit for the trailing division first. That division has to leave the road to move forward as the leading division is in the way. You cannot delay the movement or replace the chit for later drawing.
Your movement into enemy zones of control is countered if the enemy chit is draw before you get your battle chit. One of your divisions has the opportunity to hit an enemy unit on three sides so you advance three units next to the enemy unit. The next chit drawn is the enemy unit's chit, so the enemy unit moves away. No fire is exchanged. Had your battle chit been the next drawn, you could have attacked and destroyed the enemy unit.

This is only a couple of examples of where the chit system makes the battle unrealistic and skews tactics so the success of careful planning is more luck than skill.

Victory Conditions
The victory conditions are simple: The South wins if they control two or more victory locations; The North wins if they cause more confederate casualties that the north suffers. I guess it's a tie if both sides fulfill their condition.

My problem with the victory conditions is that there are victory locations that the South must seize. Assigning victory locations assumes that the armies should be interested in the same locations there were historically considered vital. In some cases, and Gettysburg is one, locations should be secondary to the main important aspects -- those aspects being open to the players choice.

In this battle, the North's victory condtion is partially valid -- destroy more of the enemy than they do of you. However, the victory condition should be layered, with complete victory only coming when the confederate army has been destroyed (e.g., 70% casualties.)

The confederate victory conditions are not valid, as they force the South to pursue the same basic strategy that was actually used. The Southern victory condition should be either "get your forces off the southern edge of the battlefield so that your army survives" or better still, destroy the union army.

No Fog of War
You can see every enemy unit on the battlefield and plan accordingly. The computer either has a limited capability to see your units (or is an idiot).

No Fatigue
Units zoom about the battlefield never getting tired. I've watched Union units move from top of the hook to the base of little round top in one turn and in the next turn the same units move back to the top of the hook. There appears to be no loss of movement or combat ability due to the fatigue of moving (or fighting for that matter).

Artillery Moves and Shoots
I find it inconceivable that artillery can move its full movement, unlimber, set up, and fire in one turn. Each turn is an hour, sure, but in some cases artillery moves from one side of the battle to the opposite side and then back in two turns, firing both times. Artillery should only be able to fire when a percentage of its movement is saved for that purpose.

Units Move Effortlessly Through Other Formations
The computer may position its units in mass with layers of units five or six deep. But units on either side of this formation may move through the center of the mass with impunity. Thus a unit on the east side of the formation may move through the mass, including downhill and uphill, to position itself on the west side of the formation. In one turn, multple units move to and fro through the mass. In my experience, moving one formation through another is difficult much less doing that while other formations are moving through the same area. The problem with this is that it allows unlimited us of interior lines.

With the enemy approaching from the west, position half of a corps' units on the west side and half on the east side. In battle, the west side units get damaged. In movement, move the west side units through the mass to east side and the east units to the west to replace the damaged units. Considering the mass of troops in the interior, the damaged units should not be able to retreast and the east units should not be able to replace/reinforce.

There should be a movement penalty incurred for each formation that a unit moves through.

Zones of Control do not Hinder Movement as They Should.
Zones of control in the game hinder movement in that a unit must stop moving when it enters an enemy ZOC, and a unit may not move directly from any enemy ZOC into another enemy ZOC.

The problem is most evident when a point of entry for reinforcement is blocked. For example Heth's division has moved south and blocks the Emmittsburg road approach for union reinforcement arriving up that road. When the reinforcements arrive the first unit stops immediately, following unit ship to the right or left on hex and enter, again stopping on their hex of entry. All these units stop because they have arrived in one of the ZOC hexes of the Heth's division.

My expection is that the next turn these units will have to engage Heth to try to break through. In fact the union units slide left/right though the ZOC hexes a march away from Heth, effectively negating the fact that their approach onto the battlefield was blocked.

This ZOC movement problem could be minimized with an "Ambush" rule. The Ambush rule should be that when a unit enters the ZOC of an enemy unit the enemy unit should fire immdiately on the moving unit without suffering return fire.

Really enjoying this game. The game follows the order of battle for Gettysburg, but adds a random element to the order of troop movement and combat each turn. This keeps the game fresh, and prevents it from becoming "solveable" after learning some pet moves. As other reviews have noted, there are some minor bugs, which probably should have been detected pre-release, considering how long this has been in the works, but having bought other games from the developer, I'm confident the bugs will be addressed. More importantly, its a fun, tactical game, that keeps changing each turn. Since it is unlikely that gamers will repeat the folly of Sickles and Barlow, or Rodes' misadventures, the random order element forces you to react each turn, rethink your overall strategy, and handle the problems that crop up during a battle. Great game at a great price!

This is a review from a more casual wargamer. If you are a fan of history and war games but are intimidated by some of the hex-based strategy simulations that have boatloads of stats and functions, this is a good game to try. Not that it doesn't have tactical considerations, but there are three unit types that behave slightly differently and are easy to understand after a playthrough. It is then mostly a game of maneuver, making sure you get your units where they need to be before the enemy does. But as we know no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, and fun is added in that the chaos of battle is simulated by making the turn order of units and the timing of battle engagement random (assuming you don't have initiative). Thus you constantly must adapt your plan to fit the evolving shape of the battlefield.

There are three difficulty levels and the easiest one is forgiving. While of course you can't win by playing completely foolishly, I was able to try some oddball strategies and still win (with both Union and Confederate, who have different win conditions). This allows the fun of experimenting without frustration if you want, while of course you can turn it up to the next levels if you want more of a realistic and challenging play.

There are some quirky issues with the UI I would like to see fixed, but nothing game-breaking. Something I would like to see added in the future is the ability after completion to see a replay of how the whole battle went. As it is there is no review of any kind after you finish other than a statement that you win/lose.

I played the First Day scenario over a period of four hours, and did not encounter any bugs in V 1.00. The "advance after combat" crash never happened to me, and I did it many times. Granted, I have a very high-end machine, so that may be why I had no problems.

It would be nice to see support for 3440x1440 that can fill a 34" curved screen monitor; I have Acer Predator

I'm an old school grognard, my first war game was Avalon Hill Afrika Korps board game in 1970. So I like these kinds of games - Decisive Campaigns is superb.

The only oddity I found in the scenario was that the Union I Corps has the same star symbol as the XII Corps. Was this intentional, or did you just run out of symbols?

The only other suggestion I have is that the map be made to look a little more contemporary; sometimes I have a hard time distinguishing the high ground from the low. I know you are trying to be true to the origional cardboard and paper map, but this is an improvement that would probably be welcomed.

Other than that, I am very pleased with my first game and will likely spend a great deal of time playing it.

ADDENDUM: I got the game freeze crash on the last turn of the Day 2 scenario, so I guess hardware isn't the answer. I'm sure this will be fixed.

Quick easy tactical game. Doesn't offer a lot of detailed information, but I guess that is why it is quick. It does offer commander names and unit experience to give flavor to our choices.

Edited: minor issue I rand into has already been addressed by devs and this is day 1!

Reasons to buy:
1. Easy to learn
2. Quick to play
3. Has both AI and Face to Face options for variety
4. Has the feel of the battle, first day Cavalry must delay Heth and Pender or it won't give time for units to arrive and hold Culp's and Cemetary later in the day.
5. Cheap.

Reasons to avoid:
1. Still has some bugs that cause you to close game and restart from last position
2. Graphics are only adequate and small annoyances in them (cannons pointing the wrong way or trails for bombardments remaining on map after bombardment over)

Knowing Slitheine the main bugs will be worked out quickly and you can wrok past them until then.So for the price it is time to buy this one if you are looking for a quick, cheap and easy to learn game you can enjoy.