Think back to the American Civil War. Now think how the war would have been had there been tanks, mini-guns, and even zeppelins! That's what developer Radioactive Software is doing with its alternative historical take on the Civil War.
Gettysburg: Armored Warfare is a multiplayer only title exclusive to Steam that lets up to 64 players battle it out in Deathmatch. There are 14 controllable units, everything from simple ground soldiers, tanks, ships, zeppelins and more. It's quite the sight to see a steampunk solider walking around with a mini-gun attached to his arm!
Gettysburg also features a real time strategy mode with Army Skirmish. Here, up to four players will take control of 192 units each as they try to capture the various control points on the map. There will be four maps at launch, each measuring 9x9 kilometers in size. There's going to be a world editor too so you can change any number of things such as the terrain to where the spawn points are located. You can then upload your custom maps to share with the Steam community.
You can expect an experience system tied to the units, but at the moment it's just a cosmetic feature as it only earns you different ranks. Radioactive Software is open to the idea of the XP system actually affecting your characters skills and such, but as the team is small they're only focusing on getting the core game out there first. Radioactive wants to be very open to the community and is looking for all sorts of ideas and feedback that can be added to the game post-release.
Gettysburg: Armored Warfare will be out sometime this March for just $9.99. Check out the video preview above for a ton more info and to see how Gettysburg looks in action.
System requirement:
OS: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHz Memory: 2GB Hard disk space: 6 GB Video card: 256MB Sound: DirectX Compatible Controller support: None DirectX 9.0c
[Special credit to Angry Joe Show and Steve Butts of The Escapist whom you can hear asking questions throughout the video.]
Hamza Aziz, Destructoid's Community Director, has been here since day one. He was born when a tiger coughed up a hairball into a pool of ooze. He was one of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles before budget cuts. Hamza works as a previews editor and manages a team in San Francisco. To date he has given away tens of thousands of dollars in prizes to readers. What a dick. Actually, Hamza is as kind as he is hairy.
Likes
Super Mario RPG, Halo, iPhone, Videogame cover bands, Super Nintendo
Meet the rest of the team
@SoundsLike
I would say that any game based on a real war is morally risque. I personally don't buy or play any of them. And even loose associations like Dynasty Warriors are odd about that when I think on them long enough. I'm probably overly sensitive on the subject though and I wouldn't say a person was amoral just because they likes the game. But at least for me personally, the US Civil War carries a particularly heavy stigma.
@sonic: you assume people (for the most part) are educated (or self educated) about what the civil war was about. It's like what we were taught about thanksgiving. I'm gonna stop now because I'm starting to sound like brainwasherattendent. It is true though. Miseducation that is.
@Isay Isay But weren't the Confederates the first to attack at Fort Sumter? I say if it's aggression against racist slavers, it's not too bad of a thing.
Oh yeah, and this game. Looks interesting, I'll have to keep my eye on it.
Also, what otaku523 said
@RocketNight: Only 2% of the entire population owned slaves. Also, a protip for you. The war was barely about slavery, thought that was one of the major items, but definitely not all of it. So no, it wasn't just fighting racist slavers.
Another Pro-Tip: The original KKK was set-up to fight carpetbaggers from the North bullying their way to take land and farms from Southerners. They originally didn't care about slaves or scaring black people.
I'm interested in why they chose the Civil War as opposed to, say, the Revolutionary War. Or why set it during actual wars to begin with? Why not a Civil War-era alternative history? I.e., in the middle of the Civil War we know some other country or power tries to take advantage of the young America's fractured state and invades, causing the confederate and union armies to band together. Or what about examining an actual nuclear attack during the height of Cold War tensions or a Japanese counterattack following Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about a game in which your father is killed in a drone attack while working in the convenience store he owned and you, his only son, are drafted into the local militia and sent to the front lines fighting the terrorists who have invaded your country? You want risque? I'll give you risque.
More orbless the civil war was about in simple terms the norths industrial. Revolution. And wanting to further industry and the south kind of just wanting to stay the same and continue to use the plantation. System
Thanks Hamza, I'll keep an eye open for this. Personally, I hope that they do a good job on it. It's too easy for a consumer to pay for a 10 dollar game and not get much out of it, but with what they've described what there (even the theoretical parts that may or may not be implemented into the game), it should sell really well. I have to say, however, that it's not a good idea to tell the consumer your entire iterative process. If you might have plans for experience affecting individual units, keep that secret until you finalize it for a further update. Either way, I'm looking forward to it now.
Other facts about the Civil War: Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee were actually the same person, which means the South actually won and there are slaves walking amongst us today. Little known fact, but there was a third faction involved in the war: The West. People in the West were just trying to get to the East Coast but could not move through that territory due to the war being fought. So they waged war on both sides. Also, Harriet Tubman was an alien and Willem Dafoe was the captain of the USS Monitor during the Battle of the Ironclads.
@RocketKnight
If I kept poking you in the ribs until you finally punched me in the face, does that make you the initial aggressor? Lincoln instigated the attack on Fort Sumter as did FDR and Wilson in their respective wars. Also Lincoln's impartiality toward the southern institution of slavery was documented, as well as his true intentions of the war - preserving the Union, with all its own protectionism and greater centralized power (no right to secession? who's the greater slaver?).
Don't mistake anything I said as a defense of the CSA or its slavery, but the fact is that there are - and as was previously practiced in other nations before - more humane and appropriate means of abolishing slavery than engaging in a doctrine of total war and the destruction of life and property.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
11:00 AM on 01.28.2012 | 
That said the moral qualms with such a game are too numerous for someone like me to ignore
I would say that any game based on a real war is morally risque. I personally don't buy or play any of them. And even loose associations like Dynasty Warriors are odd about that when I think on them long enough. I'm probably overly sensitive on the subject though and I wouldn't say a person was amoral just because they likes the game. But at least for me personally, the US Civil War carries a particularly heavy stigma.
With that's in mind I am curious how they have chosen to alter the historical basis for a civil in this game.
Oh you mean the War of Northern Aggression. Do carry on.
@sonic: you assume people (for the most part) are educated (or self educated) about what the civil war was about. It's like what we were taught about thanksgiving. I'm gonna stop now because I'm starting to sound like brainwasherattendent. It is true though. Miseducation that is.
/jazz hands
Oh yeah, and this game. Looks interesting, I'll have to keep my eye on it.
Also, what otaku523 said
Another Pro-Tip: The original KKK was set-up to fight carpetbaggers from the North bullying their way to take land and farms from Southerners. They originally didn't care about slaves or scaring black people.
Haha, no.
If I kept poking you in the ribs until you finally punched me in the face, does that make you the initial aggressor? Lincoln instigated the attack on Fort Sumter as did FDR and Wilson in their respective wars. Also Lincoln's impartiality toward the southern institution of slavery was documented, as well as his true intentions of the war - preserving the Union, with all its own protectionism and greater centralized power (no right to secession? who's the greater slaver?).
Don't mistake anything I said as a defense of the CSA or its slavery, but the fact is that there are - and as was previously practiced in other nations before - more humane and appropriate means of abolishing slavery than engaging in a doctrine of total war and the destruction of life and property.
...anyone...? Oh...