It ain't so

[madgamer2]

Is this game a incantation AACW? YA know lost of regions (poorly done), lots of micromanagement?, A production and unit building system that a guy needs a Phd to understand?. In short I found AACW to be a great game but to much for my old brain to handle and a 5 page list of things to be done each turn and a very long time to play a game even against the AI.
It looks like AACW done for the period between the French & Indian war to the Revolution. Someone, anyone tell me it doesn't look and play like AACW.....never mind I think I know the answer. It will have TO BE PUT ON MY WAIT AND SEE LIST (sigh)

Madgamer

[KG Erwin]

As a newbie to AGEOD-designed games, let me say that YES there is quite a bit of micromanagement BUT you ARE exercising control, board-game style, over a huge theater of war. I will learn, but it will take some practice.

I will be a dedicated American player, but I get the impression that the main challenge (against the AI) may be as King George. The AI Brits tend to split their forces to grab cities rather than concentrating, which makes US garrisons of strategic cities essential. This means that the US must basically just chase the Brits around the map.

[Arsan]

Hi Madgamer

I will tell it[:D]:
WIA is what you need if you liked the AACW game system but found that game too big, time consuming and complex.

This game is easier to come into, and more playable as it comes with many small and medium sized scenarios (besides 3 big campaigns with variants) that can be finished on a couple of evenings.
But still is a very fun game that offers a lot of strategic possibilities and interesting command decisions: troops are few and North America is huge, so you can't be everywhere at every time and your decisions can have big impact.

WIA scenarios (even the biggest campaigns) have much less unit density than the ACW ones. Especially the French and Indian Wars ones.
It's a more intimate kind of game, where you will come to know by heart even the last Indian unit at your disposal.
There is no army/corps/division structure as this was something not "invented" by then. Just stacks.
WIA does not have "real" production as the ACW. It works different and is less complex. Mostly by historical events and with some buyable reinforcements.
There is no real economic part neither.

As the British/French you mostly depend of what the king wants to send you form Europe, based on historical events and influenced by you successes or defeats.
As the Americans your militias are free men that get raised and dissolved mostly as they see fit.
So to make them stay on the army instead of going home on winter you need to have high loyalty, control of the important towns and a good leader like Washington able to make them stick around and wield them form militia into continentals.

Even if the game engine on AACW and WIA is mostly the same, the feeling of the game is very different on my opinion.
Probably WIA will not be liked so much by monster games lovers like the players of WiTP.

Why don't you try the demo and see by yourself?
http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/latest/WIA_Demo.zip

Regards

[Venator]

I'd say this game has it about right, It isn't exactly easy to get into. It's worth spending a few turns 'playing around' before starting a scenario for real. But it's hardly a difficult game one you grasp the basic principles - which aren't difficult, they just take a turn or two to get used to.

[WallysWorld]

I agree with Venator's comments. It took me about 4-5 turns to really get a hold of BoA's rules and then I really enjoyed the game and especially the PBEM games. Now with BoA2, I'm finding it a little more harder to learn than the first game, but it is still quite easy to learn.

My advice is to play the French and Indian War campaign to learn the game. That's what I did for BoA.