I didn't enjoy ...

[pkpowers]

... forge of freedom, but I love ageod ACW... would I like GG acw?

and also will it play on my 1 year old laptop (with intergrated graphics)===I'm worried about the graphics

thanks for an help

[RedArgo]

I don't know if you will like it and I've never played those other games, but from what I've read about FOF and from playing WBTS, I believe production is much more simple in WBTS and there is no tactical combat.

I really like WBTS. The game moves along quickly and the AI puts up a good fight. WBTS is similar (uses the same engine I think) to GG World at War if you've ever played that.

I usually run it on a laptop with a dual core AMD Turion at 1.8 Ghz, 2 gig of RAM and an ATI 1200 or 1270 don't remember for sure, which is integrated. I have no problems playing on it. There are low and high graphic levels and I am able to play on high.

Bill

[Grell]

Hi Bill,

Thanks very much for the info.

Regards,

Greg

[JudgeDredd]

I ran it on a laptop...
Advent INtel Core Duo T2080 1.73GHz
1024GB DDRIII 533Ram
Intel 943GML(Calistoga) graphics chip (supports GMA 950
Windows Vista

And it worked fine. I didn't have any crashes that I recall.

As for gameplay, it's very different to AACW. AACW has a lot more going on in terms of management of the war effort. It's impossible to say whether you will like WBTS because you liked AACW...two different beasts. But WBTS is an excellent game. It plays fast and fluid and I think most people who give it a go would be pleasantly surprised.

I was not a fan of Gary Grigsbys World at War, and this uses a similar engine, so I was very dubious, but it does play very well.

[harley9699]

I also was not a GGWaW fan. Was too scripted. Is this as well? What makes this one "fast and fluid" as compared to FoF or AACW? The micromanagement or lack thereof? Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks.

[helm123456789]

Like Harley above I'm not a fan of scripting the arrival of leaders or major events within a game to simulate actions that should be at the hands of the player.  Is there scripting of this level in the game?
 
 

[Joel Billings]

Leader arrivals are based on probabilities, which player decisions (when, where to activate leaders) has a big part in it. Some leaders can come in early with a guaranteed promotion at a fixed date, but from that point on successes impact further promotions, while many leaders have to achieve their higher command points via successes alone. Some leaders resign and then come back, all at random (unless they are old), so every game is different. I can't think of any scripted major everts except that we assume the Confederate mandatory draft comes into play at the beginning of 1862. The Union gets to decide when to issue Emancipation Proclamation (but needs a big victory to be allowed to do so), and once EP is done, may declare black recruiting. All have various impacts on Political points and border states. Union player gets to decide when they call for more troops (at a political cost). More choices, little or no scripts.

[helm123456789]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Leader arrivals are based on probabilities, which player decisions (when, where to activate leaders) has a big part in it.

Joel,

Does this mean that say leader X is available to be used and it's up to the player to decide where (east/west theater) and if to bring the leader into the game. Or does leader X just show up in Richmond on the map awaiting orders

[helm123456789]

Also more questions about the leaders since heck they were colorful individuals during this period and had a lot of impact on the out come of engagements.
 
Are the leaders able to be broken down into Theater, Army, Corps, Division and Brigades?
 
If the leaders can be borken down as above how would I know that the Division commanders in my Army aren'rt up to snuff after the battle if I'm using randomized and hidden leader abilities?

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: helm123456789

Also more questions about the leaders since heck they were colorful individuals during this period and had a lot of impact on the out come of engagements.

Are the leaders able to be broken down into Theater, Army, Corps, Division and Brigades?

If the leaders can be borken down as above how would I know that the Division commanders in my Army aren'rt up to snuff after the battle if I'm using randomized and hidden leader abilities?

Each side may appoint 2 Theatre Commanders and 4 Army Commanders. All other leaders are considered Unit Commanders, whether they are controlling a brigade or a corps sized number of troops. However, with the optional sub-commander rules, leaders with 7 or more Command Points are considered Corps Commanders, and may have other leaders of similar or lower rank (and CPs) attached directly to them. These represent division sized commanders, and the number of troops that may benefit from these sub-commanders is based on the leaders rank (i.e. a 1 star general can help 2 units, a 2 star general can help 3 units that are part of the same Corps). So with the sub commander rules the ideal is to have all units attached to Corps commanders with enough sub-commanders attached to help all the attached combat units. However, there are limitations on the number of leaders that may be activated, and sub commanders can only help units of the type equal to the leader's type (so an artillery leader may only help artillery units in the corps), so part of the strategy of the game is figuring out how you want to use your limited activations, and what areas deserve a front line command status arrangement (corps with attached division commanders), and which areas will have to make due with effectively indpendent divisions. The Corps/sub-commander system comes into play starting in Dec/61 and Jan/62 based on its historical appearance.

Leader attributes that are ?'s are revealed as used, but only a certain percentage of the time (different % chance for different attributes). So a unit defending in combat will use his defense rating, and will have a good chance of having the ? revealed, but it's not guaranteed that it will be revealed.

[SteveD64]

I think it might be interesting to have an option where "?'s" are never revealed and players have to go by results on the battlefield to figure out which leaders are effective or not.  Kinda like Lincoln had to do.

[VI66_slith]

Does anyone know the source material that was used in determining leader statistics? 


Thanks in advance....

[Joel Billings]

Who was who in the Civil War by Stewart Sifakis was the primary resource that Gary used when he first entered his leader database. In that process he also referred to other books and materials he had. During testing, additional changes were made based on various factors and resources and I know I also used Wikpedia to track down some of the history of some leaders for some of the scenarios.

After release, we would be happy to have someone take on the volunteer role of Leader Database Coordinator to develop possible changes and refinements to be made in the future (they could work with the public in the forum to find additional information). As with anything like this, there's always going to be more information to be found, and there's going to be disagreements between sources and opinions. We're happy with our ratings for the major leaders, but have to admit that for some of the less well known and/or lower ranked leaders, we don't claim to be the definitive source. I say after release because it's important that people involved in this understand how the leader ratings impact the game before making adjustments.

The nice thing is that all the leader info is moddable and in an excel spreadsheet that goes through a conversion process to be turned into a text file (the text file can be easily read and modified directly as well).

[VI66_slith]

Thank you for a most informative reply.  I have a growing library of Civil War books on leadership including Lee's Lieutenants, Battles and Leaders of the Civil War and a few other good references.  The former may be a good source for some of the lower ranked CSA leaders and the latter is a fine four volume contemporary body of work. 
 
I would love to help in any way that I can.
 
Vin

[Hertston]

As release looms, I'm still very much on the fence with this one. Does anyone else who has played all three games have any particular reasons why, already owning FoF and AACW, I should get this one as well? What does it offer that the other two don't to justify another $50?

[GShock]

I have AACW and FOF and i like WBTS [:)]

The reason why u should buy it, is that probably like me, you are a CW addict [8|]

[ratters72]

Am I the only one? I found AACW to be one of the most overated games in the strategy game genre.  Sure it was pretty to look at but the AI? I mean come on, please do something - even if it's stupid.  I spent months hoping the next patch was going to give it life but no, nothing. I think it died of a theory.  (he he). It was killed by it own design.  Trying to be too complex and confusing itself into dribble.  I'll save my remark for FoF for another day. 
 
I better stop here.  Look, I haven't played WbtS but, after reading the AARs, it is the only one that so far 'feels like the civil war' and is plausible to the many ways it could of gone.  I guess the CSA seem to get a better deal but in all honesty, if you played it historical what real chance would they of had. 
 
 

[Roger Neilson II]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

As release looms, I'm still very much on the fence with this one. Does anyone else who has played all three games have any particular reasons why, already owning FoF and AACW, I should get this one as well? What does it offer that the other two don't to justify another $50?

Ok I have both. I like the tactical game on FOF, but find the strategic game to be not very interesting - a bit CIV like in approach.... I also hate the full screen display. I would play it for the battles and would love a mod which took that side of it and developed it without the strategic side.

AACW I started off liking for its looks, but the interface is way too complex and when things happen they seemed to me to happen fast and I could do nothing to intervene.

WBST offers a realistic strategic approach that feels to me to be very similar to my understanding of how the war must have felt like. The level of detail is great, but not crazy, and the small choices you make over a leader assignment, when and where to train, when and where to base forces is great. It also is the only one to properly reflect the naval and amphibious side of this war. I love the fact that you can, if you have been careful, intervene in an opponent's move. Its also the most frustrating game I know where you have your plans and then the b***dy general doesn't move - cause he has not got initiative that month. frustrating, but again just like it was in everything I have read.

I love it. The others have come off my hard drive. This and WITP (my obsession) are truly fighting for my time now.

Roger
(Late Beta Tester GGWBST)

[tgb]

I hate Aegeod's engine. I always had a hard time merging divisions into corps. I also didn't think it was as good looking as people claim (I thought the map in FoF looked better, actually). This looks like something to keep me occupied in the coming months.

[ratters72]

That's sweet music to hear Roger.  And to add to it from just reading the AARS (even against the AI) you get the feeling that finally here is a civil war worthy to get your teeth into (and finally finish a war,without going to hell with this)..and the unknowns and gambles you have to make, and manging and infuencing without micromanagement.  This is what is appealing.  And an AI that looks like it really wants to win.
 
I'm amazed this forum is not getting more attention.  But I expect the number will increase as soon as word gets round. Whatever happens, it'll beat the hell outa eu:rome...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..I was an insomniac before I got this game.
 
Yeah, I hear what your saying tgb.  AACW had some nice colours, but was just too clutery.  I was always getting too confused of where I was due to the sheer number of provinces and detail in each one.
 
Initially, a couple of months ago, when I first saw WbtS, I thought the game looked drab. I then noticed that the provinces were larger and therefore less. I like this.  There has obviously been some good thinking that due to the many opeartions you have to conduct, you have to sacrifice some graphical display to allow the user to not get pissed off.  Clutery is not good.