First Impressions?

[tgb]

S&T guide?

[Erik Rutins]

S&T = Strategy & Tactics - we released this to the public, but it's also Section 20 in the manual.

[terje439]

hmm I am undetermined as to buy it or not, and as such need help, to best give me that help you will probably need some imput about who I am.

1. I really really like FoF (sure it has some things I would like to see changed but still)
2. I enjoyed alot of Mr. Grigsby's games, however I am no longer sure after World at War, so is this GG at his peak (SP-series imo) or at the WaW-stage? Is he once more brilliant?
3. I like control of my forces, how much control do I really get? Yes, I understand that I do not have the same ammount of control as in FoF, but still...
4. How high replay value does the game have?
5. Is the AI somewhat acceptable? (let's accept it, so far no AI has been good enough in any game [8D])
6. What is the best aspect of the game?
7. What is the worst aspect of the game?
8. Should I buy it? (note #1!!)

I hope some of you will bother to answer these Qs for me.
Thanks!

[JudgeDredd]

I have Forge of Freedom and it one of my favourites from Matrix. Very in depth and tactical battles...it's got the lot. This is totally different and, imo, shouldn't be compared to FoF. It stands on it's own as a great game. It's lighter than FoF but without being simple (it's definitely not simple!).
 
I beta tested for 5 or 6 months and all I can say is this....I did not like GG WaW or AWD. I just didn't like the engine or time frame or the way the game played. But I totally enjoyed testing this game, and that's in beta...when you are more looking for issues than enjoyment. The game was a blast...very good fun.
 
As I said, that statement is coming from a non WaW fan. I'm not a "beta tester fanboi"...truly, the game is a great game.
 

• Control of units? Not a great deal. You can move your troops from state to state, joining armies and separating them. The key in the game is leadership and assigning leaders. It's absolutely paramount you get this right to get initiative to be able to go on the offensive. You can strategically move units all over the map if you have enough strategic movement in the regions.
• Replayability - I'd say pretty high with the options. Random leader ratings? 4 levels of difficulty?
• As for the AI, it appeared to me more than capable...always keeping me on my toes.
• Best aspect of the game....for me - initiative. It's important and not given to you on a plate. It's been implimented very well
• Worst aspect of the game...for me - the lack of tactical battles (one of my loves from FoF)

Should you buy it? I'm not going to say...but I can only say this

• I was not a fan of World at War engine - you were
• I am a big fan of FoF - so are you

I'd buy it...sup to you?

[aztez]

I'am a longterm Witp player and just curious about this game.
 
How does this compare to the monumental game againts Witp? I know it is a diffrent era etc, etc.
So, it is kind of hard compare these releases.
 
At the moment I'am waiting for AE edition but just maybe I will buy this product too.
 
Thank you in advance.

[Crimguy]

Just having played a bit, I think you might actually have the ability to complete a PBEM in less than 3 years with WBTS.

We're all waiting for AE[:D]

[PyleDriver]

Once you get the hang of the game, Union turns take a little over an hour and CSA about 40 mins. So alot depends in PBEM when you opponent sends his turn back. I've had games finish in less than 30 days...

[8D]
Jon

[nelmsm1]

The differences between this and WiTP are quite numerous but the most obvious one is that there is a lot less micromanagement with WBTS.  Not to say it's a simple game but the complexities are on totally different levels.  With one month turns the WTBS games will fly by, especially as you find yourself "doing just one more turn" so you can see what happens.  I'm doing a WiTP PBEM of just the first three months of the Southern Campaign and we've been at it for 6 months or better.  I did a PBEM of the Civil War up to about September of 1864 in about 3 weeks.

[therockyfroggy]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
[*]Replayability - I'd say pretty high with the options. Random leader ratings? 4 levels of difficulty?

If the game is so focused on leaders and their initiative...than the random leader ratings will be huge with replayability.....after getting used to the game I can see doing random ratings most of the time.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

[*]Worst aspect of the game...for me - the lack of tactical battles (one of my loves from FoF)[/ul]

Thx for a quick reply. This part made the decision easy for me thou [:(]

[brisd]

Well I am still in July 1861 with the Union vs. CSA computer. I haven't read the manual thoroughly (like most wargamers) but watched all the tutorials, the 1st turn one was the MOST helpful by far. Took me awhile to get the hang of attaching and detaching units, and I have more than once left clicked when I meant to right click, send troops and leaders to the wrong places. I like the scale, tactical battles would be simply too much IMO. I have American Civil War released by Matrix last year and after a few weeks of playing it found it a waste of time and money. I have never been disappointed by any of Gary's games, from Computer Bismarck(!) to War in Russia to Pacific War to WITP, this seems to be my next time burner [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

[*]Worst aspect of the game...for me - the lack of tactical battles (one of my loves from FoF)[/ul]

Thx for a quick reply. This part made the decision easy for me thou [:(]

Np.

What I did omit to saying though is although that is the worst aspect of the game, I should've been clear in stating that it was only the worst part of the game because I couldn't think of anything else to say and I was keeping in mind the fact that you like FoF and so I was looking at what you (as I) might find to be the worst feature.

The game does not suffer from not having tactical battles. It's its own take on the ACW and it's a very good, well implemented, refreshing take on the war.

That said, if you want tactical battles in your game, then yes...you would be disappointed if you bought it. But I thought about tactical battles and the lack of when I first started looking at it and there was plenty more to do...I didn't miss them.

It's a nice change from the in-depth management system of FoF.

There is most definitely space on my drive for both.

[Grouchy]

Ok..my impressions.
The UI is kind of typical for GG, same with the amount of clicking involved. Can't say i like the current unit diplay & ordering system, it doesn't feel intuitive and it's making a complex game even more complex for poor me [;)]

The map.....compared to AGEOD's American Civil War the map is rather eeeeuh... grey.
Also scrolling is really slow for me on my Vista system and experienced 3 CTD's.

Combat/battle is rather generetic...missed the feedback during the battles and i have no idea why my troops win or lose.

Learning curve is steep, most of the time that is a good sign. I'm currently still trying to crack the movement & leader system. The gameplay is certainly there but it's certainly 'hard work' for me until now.

[Bo Rearguard]

I'm liking what I see so far. Some of the game mechanics are familiar from GG's World at War so that helps ease the newness a bit. Oddly, as an American Civil War game it looks a lot more complex in many regards than WaW.

I find the leader's mortality numbers interesting. I see the relatively young Stonewall Jackson has a four while the much older Admiral Farrugut has a one. They must reflect some of these leader's propensity to get themselves in caught the line of fire as well as their age and health. [:D]

[Grotius]

My first impression is very positive too. I'm pretty addicted! At first I was a bit overwhelmed, even though I played the heck out of GGWAW and its sequel. The new leadership system in GGWBTS can be a bit overwhelming at first, but I think I "get" it now. You want some leaders to train units; some to build forts; some to serve as theater or army commanders; some to command cavalry, some for infantry, some for navy; etc. The filters in the leadership screen help one figure all that out. There's no research or tech screen here, but that's OK with me given this setting.

I liked FoF and AGEOD's ACW too, and it's interesting to see how the three games all have different strengths. FoF models governors, tactical battles, and research; AGEOD has a neat leadership system and an elegant interface; GGWBTS seems to have the deepest leadership system, and while it uses month-long turns, it still seems plenty detailed. It's been a great year for Civil War fans!

[Titanwarrior89]

Yes its a great year for those of us who are students of the war and a good game.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

My first impression is very positive too. I'm pretty addicted! At first I was a bit overwhelmed, even though I played the heck out of GGWAW and its sequel. The new leadership system in GGWBTS can be a bit overwhelming at first, but I think I "get" it now. You want some leaders to train units; some to build forts; some to serve as theater or army commanders; some to command cavalry, some for infantry, some for navy; etc. The filters in the leadership screen help one figure all that out. There's no research or tech screen here, but that's OK with me given this setting.

I liked FoF and AGEOD's ACW too, and it's interesting to see how the three games all have different strengths. FoF models governors, tactical battles, and research; AGEOD has a neat leadership system and an elegant interface; GGWBTS seems to have the deepest leadership system, and while it uses month-long turns, it still seems plenty detailed. It's been a great year for Civil War fans!

[oldspec4]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Yes its a great year for those of us who are students of the war and a good game.[:)]
[quote]ORIGINAL: Grotius


Titanwarrior,

See you are from Arkansas. I walked the Wilson's Creek, Pea Ridge, and Prairie Grove battlefields a couple of months ago. Pretty much had each to myself for a day each. I was pleasantly surprised by Prairie Grove. State of Arkansas has done oustanding job there.

[aztez]

Thanks to all who replied to my question.
 
Just downloaded this game so I will be playing this one sooner than later.

[dthornburg]

Well, just got done getting wiped by the computer in normal mode as the Union. I finally secured MO and most of the border states by '63 but I could not find a way to slow down the CSA production. They were raking in 160+ in production every turn regardless of anything I did with my navy. I guess I will have re-read the manual/tutorial. One thing that I wish was a way to abstract or CPU control the supply aspect. I dislike managing supply. I know that probably runs counter to die-hard turn-based players but I find it an annoyance.