ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
And if it's researched and programmed as poorly as WITP was on release, I'll consider buying it in about 4 years when the modders get finished fixing it..... [8D]
Hey Mike, what game have you been playing since its release 4 years ago? [;)]
In all seriousness though, WBTS is a very tight game - rock solid in my experience and quite polished. It's also far less complex/uber-detailed than WITP but still very historical and realistic. The gameplay is really outstanding as far as simulating the ACW at a grand strategy level IMHO.
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
And if it's researched and programmed as poorly as WITP was on release, I'll consider buying it in about 4 years when the modders get finished fixing it..... [8D]
Hey Mike, what game have you been playing since its release 4 years ago? [;)]
In all seriousness though, WBTS is a very tight game - rock solid in my experience and quite polished. It's also far less complex/uber-detailed than WITP but still very historical and realistic. The gameplay is really outstanding as far as simulating the ACW at a grand strategy level IMHO.
Regards,
- Erik
I've been playing "mods" (mostly CHS) of WITP, and whatever else looked interesting. But I've tried several of Gary's games before and since.., and always found the same problems to a greater or lesser extent. And as your livelyhood depends on selling games, Eric..., please excuse me if I take your endorsements with a "grain of salt". [:D] I will be reading the comments made by it's purchasors on the forum to make up my mind about buying it. [:)]
Thanks, Apollo. And here's another incentive (aside from it really being a great game). The better this does, the sooner the new "War in Russia" will be completed. [8D]
I'm a couter-offer for you: put out WIR (stable, without the amount of bug of Witp 1.00) in 2008 and I buy not 1 not 2 but 3 copy of WBTS[;)][;)]
Se la germania perde siamo perdenti. Se la germania vince siamo perduti.
If germany lose we are loser. if germany won we are lost.
G.Ciano Mussolini's foreign minister
Ciao Paolo
Well, I'm enjoying WTBS. I'm surprised at how well the GGWaW engine works with it, and I especially like the new layer of complexity that is leaders.
Leaders have a dozen stats, all of which have a noticeable effect on gameplay. It's not just the stat governing how many units a leader may command, though that is certainly important here. Every other rating is important too. There is of course a generic attack rating, and a generic defense rating, and those really matter. After that things get really interesting. Leaders also have a rating for how well they "train" infantry, and for how well they train cavalary. The training mini-game alone is a great innovation: you simply must commit some leaders to training militia or you won't win. (I wish WITP had something like this leader-based system for training.) In addition, leaders are rated for how well they command infantry -- not just in battle, but also in moving infantry around -- as well as cavalry, arty, and naval units. Leaders have an "army mod" rating that governs how well they lead armies (as opposed to smaller formations). These ratings can be hidden or randomized, to make things even more interesting. Also, leaders get an Admin rating that affects how cheaply they can build a fort, and how likely they are to gain initiative. Leaders have a political rating that matters a lot, given that "winning" and "losing" is governed solely by a political score -- a good way of judging victory in this context. Finally, leaders even have a Mortality rating; old guys tend to retire or die, and risk-takers have a somewhat higher mortality rating. To win this game, you have to manage your leaders carefully.
The scale is "grander strategy" than AGEOD's game, with one-month turns instead of two-week turns, and there are none of the tactical battles in FoF. I kinda prefer the livelier graphics of AGEOD, especially the hand-drawn pics of leaders on counters, and I find I have to squint a bit at the WTBS map to see city names and the like. All that said, the scale here may well be helping the AI. I'm playing against the Union AI, and it's in the process of encircling me in Tennessee and has pushed me out of Manassas -- this on the Normal level. I'm not at all confident I'm going to win.
I know some grognards look at non-hex-based maps and think: "Axis and Allies." I used to be the same way. But as with WaW, there's much more depth here than that.
As for historical fidelity, WTBS seems pretty good to me. The pace of operations seems about right. Casualty numbers seem realistic. The political victory system feels right to me. The designers made some compromises in the name of simplicity, for example with the rank system for Union generals, and by omitting any chance of European intervention, all of which seem sensible to me.
Anyway, if you liked the WaW games, it's hard to see how you won't like this one.
Just curious - is there anyone out there that has played WBTS as well as AGEOD's ACW? I have had a lot of fun w/ the AGEOD game, I'm curious how this compares.
I've played all three recent ACW games -- AGEOD, FoF, and WBTS. Since you ask about AGEOD, WBTS has a somewhat grander scale: fewer map areas (I think), and one-month turns as opposed to two-week turns. The graphics in WBTS are somewhat more muted, but maybe also more clean and wargame-y than AGEOD's. I still miss the neat "chess piece" style of the AGEOD game, with leader portraits on the tokens. Still leader stats are modeled in a more interesting way in WBTS, IMHO -- leaders are rated for training infantry, training cavalry, admin (building forts etc), plus combat-related stats. You have less control over raising infantry in WBTS, but on the other hand you have to train troops on-map, a training system that WITP could learn a thing or two from.
Bottom line for me: there are things I prefer about both games, and I don't have a clear preference between them yet. I sure don't regret owning both (plus FoF, which I also enjoy). Maybe the best way to decide is to read some of the WBTS AARs in that forum. That's what sold me.
Edit: one more thing: so far the AI in WBTS really impresses me. The somewhat grander scale probably helps the AI, as the chessboard has fewer squares. The AI is kicking my butt, but then I don't know what I'm doing yet.
Glad to hear you like it, Grotius! I agree that Gary, Joel and Keith really nailed the design for this one, it truly brings the challenges of the Civil War to life at a very manageable scale.
I've often wondered how much interest there is in their civ war for none US citizens. Personnally mine is in the history and although I've played various board games I've never played a computer game.
I've often wondered how much interest there is in their civ war for none US citizens. Personnally mine is in the history and although I've played various board games I've never played a computer game.
I live in Europe and I was always interested in US civil war!
I have Shaara's father/son trilogy books and I watched (many times) the "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals"... [:)]
[/center]
