Offensives? `

[wargamer123]

I have been reading and writing with interest on this game and watching it sense it's release.. It has been looking promising so far. I am really looking for something that is fun to play and still not sure about this, I have noticed these things from all the things I have read.

Seems like the game is extremely detailed for the scope but still has a strategic feel. It does seem as if some of the features in other Civil War games is not here, but the game compensates in simplicity on that subject matter. There is also a very tactical edge here, but the open broader strategic options still have me a bit concerned over the length of the game. It seems definitely a historical easter egg but for replayability, will it dry up after 5 or 10 games? Or will new and interesting tactics strategies develop...

I know these types of games, generally you can only do 1 of 2 options... What are the Players thoughts?

Thanks for your time

And excuse my apprehension I have owned 20-30 titles I have all permanently shelved...just gets annoying to open a game and close it within a few plays.

[Ike1947]

wargamer123, I think there's a lot of potential replay here, using the settings for leaders stats, since the leaders' stats seem in large to be the key to winning or losing.  I am on my first game with the AI to learn the interface, etc, but I suspect that with FoW turned on against a human player, some interesting operational maneuvers will be possible - the AI isn't affected by FoW so I can't tell for certain as yet.  Limitations on those maneuverings are going to be logistical primarily as well as difficulties in gaining activation, but having an AC along with any flankers will solver the activation problem I think.
 
I understand and share your concern, as I have not only about 20 computer games but nearly 100 board games going back to Tactics II as well as a large number of PnP FRPG "scenarios" that were only playable once or very few times, caused by there being only one or a very limited number of strategic choices that could lead to victory.  I don't think WBtS is in that category, but the results ain't all in yet, and this is my initial impression.

[Erik Rutins]

Every game of WBTS I've played has been different. The first turns are often fairly similar, but after that anything can happen.

[Doc o War]

I think I have to say this game is a good game- and with the level of complexity and the multitudes of events that can happen- while some strategic moves are fairly common- there are so many options. I do not think this game will have one or two pat endings- maybe 10 or 20- but that is a pretty large range with a game of this nature.
       Kudos on this one-

[wargamer123]

I appreciate all the feedback. I truly have been concerned on how far to venture into a Civil War game period since I did explore AGEOD's and I personally did not get the feel for it that I would from some other war games. The fact that GG was programming and that the emphasis has been on Strategic play mixed with tactics appealed to me.
When I have tried AGEOD's I get less the feel of armies marching and poor like a board game. Which I do not mind, just not the feel I was looking for. This particular map and gameplay appealed to me more so because so far as I can view it looks like you are imagining of a complex universe reliving the Civil War. Even though the graphics are basic it's the interface that can often doom a game. There has to be the right combination or war games turn into Moosh.. IMHO

[emcgman]

Hey wargamer123,

I too have been getting more and more interested in this game the more I study the screen shots, video trailer and forum.

I started out by thinking, `who needs another Civil War Game?'

Yet, over time, this game appears like it might just be the tightest game out there right now.

Here's what I really like from what I can see.

1) The map regions are divided and formed really well, and there appears to be enough regions to facilitate interesting maneuvers. The map itself is really clear, easy to read, and the units are clearly displayed.

2) I really like how the role of the Cavalry seems to be modeled in this game.

3) I get a sense of great depth yet the interface remains uncluttered.

4) The approach to gameplay seems well defined between the North and South, to where you're almost going to be playing a completely different game depending on which side you play.

The only thing I don't like is the month long turns, but that will not stop me from buying the game. Hopefully this will be my next game purchase.

[heroldje]

for what its worth, i buy a lot of strategy games, and this is the only one whose forum i post on, and whose game i return to time and time again

[IronWarrior]

Similiar to my experience, I mostly like tactical stuff like the Tiller's BG series, but this is the first overall strategy game I've really been happy with.

I can see no possible way that anyone would shelve this one after a couple games, but then again that is purely subjective and I was left scratching my head at a preview/review of this game that the reviewer said that this game wasn't fun and it was because of watching the AI take it's turn. [&:] I've tried many titles that were touted as the best thing since sliced bread, gold medals, game of the year... all of which were disappointing for me, and yet it seems surprisingly quiet on the reviews and awards for this game??? go figure [:D].

This is easily my favorite game at the moment. There are many reasons, but a few are the FOW, cavalry scouting and raiding, leader initiative, and the way the battles are resolved- sitting on the edge of your chair as it plays out- and the way it shows the modifiers (and on the replay as well) so you're not left guessing what determined the outcome, or left feeling that you're not part of it and it's just random things going on "under the hood".

This game has also been nicely supported so far, by Joel and the 2 by 3 guys.