American Civil War/Revolution Games?

[tthor]

those wars would probably be kinda boring. i mean, a revolutionary war battle was basicly, a bunch of guys lined up and take turns shooting, and whichever side ran out of enough men first lost

 

[StarCecil]

those wars would probably be kinda boring. i mean, a revolutionary war battle was basicly, a bunch of guys lined up and take turns shooting, and whichever side ran out of enough men first lost

There's a little more strategic thinking to it than that. You have to outmaneuver, figure out how to break the enemy, figure out how to win. When warfare does equal mass casualties, you have to figure out a way to make the enemy's mass-er.

 

[Najos]

Darkest of days, but that's not very good. GUN and Red Dead Redemption are on the revolution.

Even though Darkest of days is an FPS and not an RTS, it's a great American revolution sim, since that's about the only damn place you ever go in the game.


And I'm not up to scratch on my American history (Being British and all), but what's the difference between the civil war and the revolution? I thought they were the same thing?

I think Darkest of Days takes place in the Civil War. The American Revolution was when the colonists separated from Britain to form the United States. The American Civil War occurred some ~100 years later, when the southern states separated from the US to form the Confederate States. War then ensued. You might hear of the American Civil War referred to as a revolution by revisionists, but in the northern US (where I'm from) you'll never hear it called that.

The only thing I've ever heard is "war between the states." Implying that since the Southern states were technically a different nation, that it couldn't be a civil war. It actually sort of makes sense, the South did have government officials and all that. But hey, the North won and winners write the history! Oh, I almost forgot about "the war of Northern aggression." Ahhh, fucking Alabama.

 

[StarCecil]

Darkest of days, but that's not very good. GUN and Red Dead Redemption are on the revolution.

Even though Darkest of days is an FPS and not an RTS, it's a great American revolution sim, since that's about the only damn place you ever go in the game.


And I'm not up to scratch on my American history (Being British and all), but what's the difference between the civil war and the revolution? I thought they were the same thing?

I think Darkest of Days takes place in the Civil War. The American Revolution was when the colonists separated from Britain to form the United States. The American Civil War occurred some ~100 years later, when the southern states separated from the US to form the Confederate States. War then ensued. You might hear of the American Civil War referred to as a revolution by revisionists, but in the northern US (where I'm from) you'll never hear it called that.

The only thing I've ever heard is "war between the states." Implying that since the Southern states were technically a different nation, that it couldn't be a civil war. It actually sort of makes sense, the South did have government officials and all that. But hey, the North won and winners write the history! Oh, I almost forgot about "the war of Northern aggression." Ahhh, fucking Alabama.

I suppose whether or not you consider the Confederacy a separate nation depends on perspective. And you're opinion of secession. I've always held the belief that states do not have the right to secede, so I don't consider the Confederacy a separate country (more like children playing at running a country). The South, however, would argue otherwise.

 

[Cyd0n1a]

I'd suggest Take Command: 2nd Manasses. I think it is hands down the best game about the American Civil War if can get past the somewhat lacking graphics.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/take-command-2nd-manasses

 

[GaWi]

I find both wars to be really boring. THe only wars I actually care for is World War II only becasue so many stories have come out of Nazis trying to find some supernatural way of beating the allies.

If you're looking for good ones though, I think History channel games pretty much dominate that particular time era for games.

Part of the reason why there are so many WWII games is that WWII has such variety.

WWII is the golden age of:
Dogfighting
Sniper combat
Submarine warfare
Tank to tank warfare

It takes everything that made WWI interesting a increased it

Not to mention WWII has the best variety of weapons: everything from bolt-action rifles to machineguns to flamethrowers.

 

[Krantos]

But hey, the North won and winners write the history!

Funnily enough, that's not terribly accurate about the American Civil War. Truth is most CW historians are southern in origin (and often sympathies). Which actually leads the literature about the war to be a special case, since it's very easy to find both sides of the story.

A really great book series (if you're ever interested) is Shelby Foote's "Civil War: A Narrative." It's historically accurate, but the author is actually a Novelist so it's the easiest to read history of the war I've encountered thus far.

Now, POP history of the war is completely off its tits no matter if it's Northern or Southern in its sentiment. Kind of funny really, that the most written about section of America's history is the one that's least understood by the general public.

I suppose whether or not you consider the Confederacy a separate nation depends on perspective. And you're opinion of secession. I've always held the belief that states do not have the right to secede, so I don't consider the Confederacy a separate country (more like children playing at running a country).

Perspective is important, no doubt, but it's not especially accurate to claim the Confederacy was "children playing." Most of the Confederate leaders had been highly placed politicians in the Union before the war. In fact Jefferson Davis (the "Confederate President") had been a damn good Secretary of War. He just wasn't a particularly good choice for president.

The question of whether it was a Civil War or a war between countries actually stretches all the way back to the War itself. The South considered itself a country while the North called the war a Rebellion. In fact Lincoln never once acknowledged Davis's position as head of the Confederacy. He basically just ignored him, which was a knife that cut both ways. He was saved from having to respond publicly to anything Davis did or said, but also couldn't defend himself either. It was an interesting situation to say the least.

 

[thelastmccabe]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

Get it. Love it.

/thread

I second this motion. It's not perfect, but it's definitely very good, and from what I remember the AI is pretty tough. IIRC you can pause to issue commands, which I enjoy in my RTS's. There's also one for Antietam.