How does this game compare to others?

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: paplan
Which has the least micro-management?

Without having tried (only read the AAR's) War Between the States, but only FoF and AGEOD:ACW, I'd say FOF if you choose to not play detailed battles, and with the most simplistic settings.

[Titanwarrior89]

Their all very good in their on right.  But for me I can't seem to get enough of WbtS.  It seems to have the right mix.  

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Pford

ORIGINAL: tran505
And the award for "best map" by a stragetic ACW game goes to....
"Blue and Gray"

C'mon that award has to go to AEGOD's game, with that Currier & Ives theme. Of course, it's a question of taste.

Personally, for gameplay, I find WBTS the most engrossing and deeply thought out. There's a lot of Mind here. I'd love to do a PBEM but I'm struggling on Normal settings with the AI.[8|]

Play the South, and you will do fine

[madgamer2]

Why is it you equate depth of play=game length? AACW has the much longer and max micromanaging required and if that is what you want then so be it, but just because WbtS is a shorter game does not make it a less deep game experience.
I am not against long games as the many hours I spent (and will spend with AE) playing WitP attest to. I have yet to really get a grasp on that game but I love it and one day I may try to play against a person. As others have said each of the three games has it good points but each is designed from a different point of view.
I have some real problems with AACW in trying to deal with a map that has 2800 regions. Now some of you just adore the "period" style map but my eyes and brain do not 3 hours and I get a headache. I find the map hard to figure out because the region and state borders make it hard to see the regions. I also have a problem with all the click,click,click that is required for each turn. I find the constant changes in the game play with all the patch's makes it hard for me to get through the learning curve. I am unable to deal with the supply rules as they are in 1.10c (not tried 1.1od) because I run out of war supplies or money to the point of not having many replacements. I feel that the poor way all the game information is presented makes it hard for players to use let alone understand. I will still play it but wish that they would stop tinkering with the system and improve the User interface and clean up the map a bit.
Of the three games Gary's WbtS is by far the best designed game. If Micro management and a long game in PBEM format are for you then play AACW but don't put WbtS down because it is a shorter game.
I won't even comment on FoF due to limited space and my own reasons for not favoring it.

Madgamer

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: madgamer
Why is it you equate depth of play=game length? AACW has the much longer and max micromanaging required and if that is what you want then so be it, but just because WbtS is a shorter game does not make it a less deep game experience.

I didn't interpret any of the comments as either equating depth with length or with the quality of the game experience, and just as you say, there is no reason to do so either. On the contrary, it's a huge benefit for Matrix to have three such different implementations of the ACW. Hopefully, everyone will find any or more of them being of their taste. I will most likely end up with all three of them...

ORIGINAL: madgamer
...each of the three games has it good points but each is designed from a different point of view.

Yes! And that's why I believe it's best to simply provide statements outlining the differences in the design and game philosophies, rather than talking about why "I" like/don't like or prefer/don't prefer the one game over the other. All three are obviously good quality games with a solid customer/player base. Patches and mods are available to improve the gaming experience for all three.

ORIGINAL: madgamer
I have some real problems with AACW...

I sure hope you tried to get through to the AACW community at AGEOD with your feedback. Unfortunately, with my limited knowledge of the code behind AACW, much of your issues seems to be related to the engine itself and the design philosophy of AGEDO. Most of their games have a similar look and feel to them. But, let's not hijack this thread which is about WbtS rather than the GUI and usability of AACW [:)]

ORIGINAL: madgamer
Of the three games Gary's WbtS is by far the best designed game.

It would be interesting to know more about this firm statement? Since I am only days away from buying WbtS, and already enjoy the other two titles mentioned, I am very interested in what leads to this conclusion, specially since at least AACW and FOF are completely different in their approach, while WbtS seems closer to AACW? Can you perhaps clarify?

ORIGINAL: madgamer
If Micro management and a long game in PBEM format are for you then play AACW but don't put WbtS down because it is a shorter game.

Again, I didn't see anyone putting any game down in the previous comments, and I don't think that was the intention of the thread either.