From the first clash at Manassas to the epic confrontation between Lee and Grant, the Brother Against Brother series will bring new levels of historical detail and realism to the battles of the Civil War. This regimental-level game, created by the developers of the award-winning Forge of Freedom, builds on that game’s acclaimed tactical engine, adding scrupulously researched orders of battle, high-quality map graphics, command and control rules reflecting the numerous challenges faced by army commanders, and plenty other features. Beginning with The Drawing of The Sword – which recreates the pivotal opening battles at Manassas , Wilson ’s Creek, Mill Springs and Williamsburg – Brother Against Brother lets you refight the Civil War from start to finish.
Thanks Yogi. Does this game have tooltips that pop up? The interface looks like FoF a lot. Too much for my liking, unless it works better.
No Tooltips.
The FOF Battle system could be called the base of the BAB system, but this is much enhanced and expanded.
Beyond Column and Line there is an order system that is used for the Divisions with 7 status such as, March, Advance, Assault, withdraw, hold, rest, rally and they can refuse to go to it. Further they can refuse to move at all.
The Battle is often lost over collapse of morale rather that victory hexes and points, you can seem to be winning when your Army just gives up.
Like the real war units fire at who they want (most often what is in front of them) you don't get o chose who they fire at and unrealistically target enemy units.
The detailed map is also about the best and most accurate battlefield map out there.
Again there is a learning curve and it is not a good game for a casual or new gamer that likes simplicity. Once you get it though it is about the best simulation of civil war battle in a game. If only they would make more Battles as originally planned it would be the best series out there on the topic.
I saw tooltips for some things hovered over in a YouTube video. [&:]
Sorry LarryP thought you meant being able to get playing tips by toggle over units or just popping up advice say something like the help you might get in CIV games more or less training for new players.
On quick menu options icons if you hover over them a small up up tells you what it takes you to
I love tooltips because I can't always remember what each tool icon stands for. That's what happens when you get to be old. Wait a minute, I've always loved toolips.
That seems to be clear from quite a few comments about the game.
I don't disagree that it would have been helpful, but a tutorial doesn't make a good game as many bad games have a decent tutorial. After all the tutorial may help in understanding some complexities or uniqueness of a game but a good game is in the game. This one is different and given the effort is well worth it. However I do agree that a good tutorial may have helped this game to be more accepted and appreciated.
i don't agree, a tutorial makes little difference to the overall game, most didn't like the fact it seems that they hardly knew the battles in it, and wanted other ones instead, so if different battles had be portrayed, a tutorial or not, maybe would have been better eg have sold more and been excepted more, which is a real shame, as battle in game are really good imo, and while a tutorial may have explained it more and made it a bit easier for some to learn, most still wouldn't have bought, if the battles wasn't or weren't what they wanted in the first place[:(]
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 26100) (26100.ge_release.240331-1435)
Actually we do agree Zakblood [:)] A good Game is in the game and has nothing to do with a tutorial. I was surprised by all the comments about the need for a tutorial after the game was released and it seemed like much ado about nothing. But as time went on and the comments continued it seems that they have to be considered for developers to help get the product accepted.
Maybe one more thing that games never needed to have as buyers would just figure it out but now need a tutorial to be happy and don't want to take the time. [&:] I don't recall any of my old Avalon Hill games that came with a tutorial but now that I think of it maybe Advanced Squad Leader should have had one. [:D]
We also agree on another point which is the battle selection. If I remember correctly the original grand plan for the series was to present the civil war and most of the significant battles. The thought was to go chronologically starting with of course Bull Run. Wile there was going to be a Gettysburg when it's time came in order there was even talk of that battle being overdone. As it turns out people want those "worn out" battles. We see them repeatedly in all wars time and again. But we keep buying them as long as we think this new game is just what I want and sometimes eagerly await for the next new game on the same old topic. [;)]
the idea was to do all the battles of the war yes in a series, but as the game hasn't gone down how everyone exspected eg sell as well for one reason or another, it didn't happen, may in the future but who's to know and say, seems more than one developer is leaving the war game designing this year, so next is one less for everyone which is a sad times we live in i'm sorry to say, as most of us of a certain age remember the older makers, which are by now getting less and less each year, if less support war game, the decline will be quicker.
so a few have said price it too high, or was.
some say (quite a few btw) no tutorial or not enough in game help etc..
and some say they didn't or don't like the battles portrayed, and tbh (for me i never heard of them, or played or tested any civil war games before this either as it wasn't my kind of war or theater either, being mainly a WW2 fan) ...
so anything else to add to the list of not liked? oh one last one, a quite forum i can remember being mentioned[:(]
Hi floks,
added Bofors 40mmm for the Fins, Poland will receive its share also.
Yes the Italians are now better equipped for the war in Southern Russia and they have to be if the Soviet onslaught comes from end of 1942 on.
@zakblood:
No, Army General is not going well, in fact Phobetor is for some time now not doing well.
Therefore Army General will be my last historical wargame.
For over ten years now i made and supported these games but in large the players do not like my games and they clearly voted with their wallet against them.
Reasons are plenty, but possible reactions are very few. I chose to make different games from now, try different markets etc.
All the same i will continue to support, fix and expand GaW and AG regulary. E.g. GaW will see the promised Soviet campaign as the German Allies get ready for it.
The support of you guys here and in other places helped me hold fast and i am grateful for it. So this is no good bye - i will be around.
Regards,
_____________________________
Ronald Wendt
Phobetor website
Phobetor on Facebook
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 26100) (26100.ge_release.240331-1435)
Whilst I like the idea of tutorials - as I recall there were some decent play though videos that gave you a good feel for the gameplay.
I admit to being one of those persons who are rather "Gettysburged" out -however that doesn't mean I would not support the game if the devs came out with a Gettysburg game. especially if it means the series continues.
I almost bought this game when it came out but decided to wait and see if and when future battles would be done. The present release has mostly smallish and somewhat inconsequential battles/skirmishes that simply didn't trip my interest into buying. If it had been Bull Run, Shiloh and the Peninsular battles I probably would have invested... that being said I am glad I waited... if and when a sequel is released I will probably invest in the series then.
my problem is the large info window in the bottom left that takes up a lot of the viewable area of the map its like looking thru a letterbox it should have been made slideable out of view like other info windows the mouseover gives much of the same info
I haven't posted much - but I have now played every scenario with both sides (albeit, on sergeant), I have a few comments.
- I really like the game and am wishing you the best so the series can continue (is that a super power? [:D] )
- IF the default difficulty is supposed to be historical, the AI should act the same as the human - it appears to add punch to the AI player
- Retreats (panic) should be AWAY from the enemy, not towards
- LOS may need work - seems that firing through friendlies is normal
- Probably not a real problem as I suspect the end result is the same but the icons seem to have trouble following roads
- People are reported as "slightly injured" etc, but, generally I have no idea which unit they are associated with
- No history on Alfred Terry? Probably more famous then most in the game due to his being Custer's commander in the Little Bighorn campaign
- the game could be speeded up a bit with a few innovations - march movement as a full brigade etc. I don't set the game on instant moves; watching the icons move adds flavor, but waiting a minute for each regiment to move makes turns take longer then the actual battle.
- Just my opinion but I take in-column artillery to be limbered and in-line artillery as unlimbered - in column should only be able to fire with small arms and, in a similar argument, in column infantry should only be able to fire to the front hex and then, as no more then eight men firing.
- Not sure if this is a bug or not but, when cavalry are armed with shotguns, they really shouldn't be treated by the AI as front line troops; IMO they are best5 used as raiders but - no matter what brigade orders they are under; they cannot approach supply wagons closer then five hexes unless the wagons are unseen.
- Perhaps leader casualties are too random? For instance, I had an army commander killed who was in the trees and well back from the battle (I guess he was drunk and fell off his horse [:)] )
- While a good idea, I feel that "staff is too close to the enemy and has to retreat" should only happen if the enemy can see the staff - not just because they are within some radius.
- An honest attempt to add historical accuracy, entire divisions not moving when not within command/control distance of the confused commander is a bit much. Perhaps leader indecision should instead trigger a dfie roll for local commander initiative and, if passed, said brigade could still move? After all, they have no way of knowing anything going on other then the orders they already received so would likely just continue on
- It seems that brigade, division, and army commanders have little influence on rallying troops - I feel this to be a mistake.
Any way, I see these as constructive criticism - a way to make a good game better (well, mainly any following games). Oh, and as far as the smaller battles, I really hope sales are good enough for these to continue. Really, they are often more of a challenge and quite important (like Wilson Creek). Pea Ridge, for instance, is rarely covered but both fun and important. The AI seems to work well too - not once was I tempted to play hot seat against myself.
These biting remarks brought to you by Terry and his troops: Legio K IX, King Sarge II Commanding
Good to see your post lordhoff, it is a very good game and happy to see that you really like it.
I hope that there will be others that follow in the series some day, if so they may consider your suggestions or maybe you could be one of the beta testers.
btw, have you tried the multiplayer yet now that you have experienced each scenario from both sides?
No; my schedule is too crazy and I never know when I'll be able to play or not and for how long. Humans are alwaqys better opponents then an AI, though.
These biting remarks brought to you by Terry and his troops: Legio K IX, King Sarge II Commanding
