How is the Game?

[wargamer123]

Can anyone explain their opinions, overall. Strategic feel? Anything this game reminds you of? How does the playability strike you?

It's hard to know sometimes by the Films/Explanations.. I get more from reading the AARs, but I'm not 110% on those.. I get a feel by reading that as the CS you are really trying to spend the whole game just stalemating the Union? Strategic variation being small?

Well, that may or may not be true... How is the tactical aspect, AGEOD/or the Blue and the Grey didn't appeal to me from the image and DEMOs... As they reminded me of too much stuff that bored me

One thing I do know about GG's games, is they're primarily Strategic Operations..With some tactical flair, there is however a point when certain things just do not appeal...

Personally I loved Victoria and HOI but only MultiPlayer... Though those two titles in my opinion were too difficult to get a game going in

[Berkut]

Are you looking for MP or simply against the AI?

Most of the AI players seem to really like the balance and such - but I cannot comment on that.

From what I have seen so far, the MP is interesting, but suffers from some balance issues. That is strictly my opinion though.

[IronWarrior]

Well I've only had the game less than a week, but so far I am really enjoying it. I feel like they struck a nice balance, as i said on another topic, between the amount of control given to the play and historical and realistic gameplay, with a just the right touch of randomness.

This is the first time I've been happy with an overall strategy type of game, I mostly play tactical stuff like John Tiller's Battleground series, etc. I tried AGEOD's Napoleon demo and just couldn't get into it.

TBH I don't have an answer to your question about the CSA spending the whole game stalemating the Union. I am still too new with the game, but I just started a pbem and have been playing it quite a bit... I just haven't had it long enough to answer that one. It does seem like there is the chance for good stratgic variation becuase of the amount of control given the player.

The FOW, scouting/raiding/C&C are all done very well imo.

I suppose the real question is if you would like it or not? There are really so many different personal preferences that noone could really say for sure. I am also not really familiar with the games you mentioned so that doesn't help me compare. Ultimately only you can decide.

Again I haven't had the game long and maybe I'll change my mind later, but so far I'm very happy with it.

[JanSorensen]

Try reading some or all the AAR. Better than the cluterring of posts about real and/or misunderstood problems they show how the game plays. Just remember that the game is still new so most posts will probably still have imperfect graps of the rules as well as the possibilities. I know I do despite having been involved with the project
 

[paullus99]

I finally broke down & got the game yesterday. All I can say is WOW! It took me about an hour to get the basics down, after that, it was off to the races.

I am still figuring things out, but the interface is fairly intuitive & the gameplay is a lot of fun. So far, its a winner in my book.

[wargamer123]

Interesting. So far sounds promising! Is this a lot like World At War?

I will probably watch it for another 6 months or so, and see if the interest keeps up and the Opponents grow

[Bo Rearguard]

It shares some mechanics and similiarities with Gary Grigsby's World at War. However, there is a great emphasis on leader units which weren't in the former where combat units were mostly independent. The combat units; artillery, cavalry, infantry function mostly to fill out the corps and armies under a leader's control.

[aztez]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

I finally broke down & got the game yesterday. All I can say is WOW! It took me about an hour to get the basics down, after that, it was off to the races.

I am still figuring things out, but the interface is fairly intuitive & the gameplay is a lot of fun. So far, its a winner in my book.

Agreed. Definately worth the money.

[madgamer2]

one thing to consider is the man who designed this game. Gary Grigsby's games are all well designed games. I have not always liked the battle or period but his designs are always well done. I was very pleased when I found he was doing a strategic level game on the civil war. You can wait uh..6 months?... if that is what you want but I have found a strategic game that I can play and not get bogged down in some part of it like supply in AACW or roll your own rules and eco system of FoF. When you do buy it I think you will love it.

Madgamer

[mikeCK]

As an owner of Ageods AACW, Forge of Freedom and GG War Bet. the States, I can tell you that, in my opinion, GGtWBtS is the most entertaining. I could never really "get into" FoF. I loved AACW and played in all the time. There is just "something" about GGWBtS that grabs you. I think that it is the control you have over the leaders and the impact they have on a battle. concepts like intiative add to it as well. I am about 2/3 the way through the final volume of Shelby footes Civil War narrative and I find that I run into the same problems playing this game as the actual commander had in the war. Independent commanders doing nothing for months at a time regardless of prodding from DC, commander who are unstoppable as division leaders destroying whoel armies when placed in charge, difficulties in timing multiforce movements, etc.

There is something that draws you in when you are genuinly pissed at Mcclellan because he refuses to move from his position..I mean ACTUALLY pissed at the computer Lil Mac.[:@]

[madgamer2]

I hear you! There is nothing like Having Lyons blow through Padauh right to the region next to Memphis in two turns then sit there with no movement for 6 or seven months which by then it is winter! Don't even get me started with Little MaC!

Madgamer