What's up in the WBTS world?

[Champagne]

I have some questions over in the War Room that I hope to address.

[Treefrog]

I was a Beta tester, game purchaser and earlier contributor to this forum with observations and questions. I played about a dozen PBEM games.

Outstanding grand strategy simulation !

What's up now? People move on and that has happened here (happened to all my old Avalon Hill and Strategic Simulation games too). I found a Union strategy that even my most brilliant opponents were unable to counter, so I moved on too.

My pbem coterie did think that the CSA has too much (and unrealistic) strategic capability, so we reduced the CSA army commanders in general play from 4 to 3 (the fourth was required to remain in the Trans-Mississippi).

I haven't been following the forum discussions, but tend to think that new patches will not revive interest.

My computer ate the first game, so I bought it twice. I would do so again.

[NavalNewZ]

.

[IronWarrior]

I have just recently been wanting to get back into this game actually. [:)] Thing is, I have fallen in love with WitP and now WitP AE and haven't had the time for much else.

Was mulling it over a little last night and here's my take on some things...

My two favorite features I look for are: pbem capability and WEGO. WbtS wins the first out of the three offerings, and ageod's title wins the latter. For me, pbem is more important though, so WbtS is my favorite of the three. I also think WbtS gives the most accurate and realistic results.

If WitP didn't suck up all of my free time I would definately play this title more, and I probably will once some of my pbem games finish up of other games. Outstanding game that still works even without WEGO. WitE is going to snag a lot of my time again though- a curse of just how great 2by3 games are. [:D]

I would love to see you guys do the Napoleonic campaigns... not the entire Grand Campaign, but the various ones in greater detail.

[Astyreal]

For what it's worth, I am just starting to pick this one up and enjoying the initial foray quite a bit.

I bought the game when it first came out, but it takes a while for titles to make it through my 'queue' sometimes.  Having a two year old doesn't help in that regard.

I think this game is pretty original, and non-intuitive.  Two qualities I rate highly.  I'm more on the side of gameplay, so if a game has the utmost modeling and detail to the nth degree but has derivative gameplay, I'm less interested. 

I'm just getting my feet wet but I'll let you know how it develops.

Is there any chance Gary does another non WW II title?

[ruixilyy]

I am interested in this game but i still want someone to confirm me whether this game can be run under 1024*600 screen resolution (my laptop is a netbook)?

[Astyreal]

Aw, don't hijack the thread. You've got another one devoted to this topic. It's a good game besides, doesn't really matter the resolution.

[ruixilyy]

Doesn't really matter? You should know that some games will not run under 1024*600, for the reason that their minimum support resolution is 1024*768. However, I can not find any information which specify the minimum resolution of this game. I really do not want to buy a game that can not run in my netbook. By now, it is disappinting that no one from Matrix Games clarify this issue, so i have to wait until i get the answer, otherwise i will not buy this game.

[Joel Billings]

I don't know for sure, but I think the minimum resolution on all of our games is 1024x768, sorry.

[RangerX3X]

I find it interesting that you guys at 2X3 went in another direction other than WW2. From what I have seen the game looks promising, however given the fact that it is a 2008 title and in this thread you admit that development has ceased, the $49/$59 price point that Matrix is pushing is simply preventing my purchase. With no demo and the manual/tutorials not having kept pace with the updates that were made, it is too risky a proposition to fork over that kind of gaming cash.

[Joel Billings]

It was cheaper during the Holiday sale. I think it was discounted by 30-35%.

[Titanwarrior89]

For me WBTS is a better game.....The map for AEGOD is more pleasing to the eye but the Ai does some dumb things. I have bought all three games AGOED and FOF but for me WBTS is it. I also think WBTS is one of the better games produced by GG and company.

ORIGINAL: hgilmer3

ORIGINAL: cmurphy625

Tried it.. couldn't get into it.. favor AGOED and FOF over this.. maybe someday I'll try it again..

I agree with cmurphy. I have FoF, Aegod's, and GGWBTS. I like the way battles are presented but I feel constrained at times. I have never been thrilled (I've never complained because why would you complain? You either like it or you don't) with the way emancipation works. I also have never liked the way I would be really struggling at the end of the game with sizes of armies/needing garrisons.

So, I put it aside.

[Skanvak]

I support a discount would may be made me cross the line. Gold game are sold 10 € in Europe and as I have plenty of thing to do I can wait until it goes Gold.

[Capt Cliff]

So .... any feed back on how many people still playing this game?

After a few games I am still having a problem with Kentucky. Sure would be nice to have an historical option button that Kentucky joins the union on November 1 1861. That's what they did historically, forced the CSA to invade. The old board game called Civil War, Butterfield did it I think, had that the Union got to use the rails in October then Kentucky joined the Union in November. I don't understand why the game is set up the way it is.

[Hyding]

General Polk without orders from Richmond invaded Kentucky on 3-4 September 1861 and occupied Columbus Kentucky across the Mississippi from Union forces in Belmont Missouri. That gave the pro-Union legislature the votes to request Union assistance and to overide the veto of the pro-CSA governor.

If Polk had not invaded in September or if the CSA government had condemned and reversed the act there is no telling how long some degree of Kentucky nuetrality could have been maintained.

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

So .... any feed back on how many people still playing this game?

After a few games I am still having a problem with Kentucky. Sure would be nice to have an historical option button that Kentucky joins the union on November 1 1861. That's what they did historically, forced the CSA to invade. The old board game called Civil War, Butterfield did it I think, had that the Union got to use the rails in October then Kentucky joined the Union in November. I don't understand why the game is set up the way it is.

[martok]

I'm still tinkering around with it, although I have yet to truly get into a campaign. I like most of what I've seen, but it's not the most user-friendly game I've ever played; the difficulty curve is pretty steep.

[Capt Cliff]

Yes, I see now that a blunder by Polk uncorked the Dinji!!

[WriterJWA]

This post is a bit old, but I've been playing the heck out of WBTS recently, learned a lot via the manual and Joel Billings, and thought I'd add my two cents.

I've played both WBTS and AGEod ACW and both are currently installed and sometimes it's a tough choice between the two.  AGEod is beautiful, but it a bit of a graphics bear, and even looks a little cartoon-y for my tastes.  I'm a "Union Man" so to speak, and love the challenges presented a Union player (leadership, public support, etc...), and I think AGEod manages to capture the dilemma of the early-war leadership problems, especially with regards to initiative.  The CS AI, however, is a bit gamey.  I've had to chase independent Confederate infantry brigades that slip through the detection cracks in the border as far north as Chicago and beyond.  That's a heck of a long way to march while foraging for supplies in a hostile country.  Units can move a bit too fast for two week turns.  It took a month for two armies to tactically move from the Rappahannock to Gettysburg.  WBTS does seem to have this problem.  In fact, in some regards I'd say it's a little restrictive (a larger, more detailed map might solve this). 

I love the map in AGEod ACW!  It's very well put together.  Not so much graphically, which is nice, but that it is very expansive and detailed.  I'd say it's close to twice the size of WBTS with twice as many regions.  If there were to ever be a re-invention of WBTS, this would be the first thing I'd recommend.   A larger map would give me more opportunity to use maneuver tactics, which is crucial for both sides out West.  A large map of the US drawn up much the way it is done in WITE would be unbelievable!

The production system in WTBS is (IMO) much better and easier to "deal with."  In AGEod, you practically have to micromanage production to the regimental/brigade level, across the entire front, which can get old, and makes it easy to lose track of units.  I like the fact that I can put production on autopilot.  It might be a noob move, but it's worked out SO FAR.  Also, the level of detail in the units in AGEod make the game a bit of a bear when conducting operations.  The supply system is a bit too intricate and a puzzle by itself whereas WBTS seems to not be so.  Also, AGEod has historical-based events that, IMO, drag players in directions they may not want to go.  There are political announcements and the like which though likely accurate in the timelines of the ACW, may not be so depending on the actions of the player filling in for Lincoln or Davis.  I don't like engines that force decisions on me and WBTS manages to keep that to a minimum, Emancipation Proclamation being an exception. 

WBTS has NATO counters.  AGEod does not.  10 points for WBTS.  Period. [:D]

Also, the WBTS video tutorials are amazing!  I think that's a must for companies that produce complex wargames!  Well done! 

(But Y U no make production video???)

WBTS is a much "tighter" game, it seems.  I haven't had a crash yet while AGEod crashes with some regularity (and I'm rocking an i5 w/ 4gig mem) and doesn't have half the support.  AGEod is moddable, but it's instability make it a dangerous one to do so with.  WBTS could benefit from some modding capabilities and a scenarios editor/designer.  AGEod has a much larger scenario list that deals with specific theaters and time frames.

I'd argue that the ACW is probably one of the hardest wars to develop a meaningful strategy game for because of the amount of variables in it. The political and social "what-if's" are a lot more prevalent than in a game about the Pacific War or the advance through Russia, so my hat is off to anyone that manages to pull a game off.  Anyone expecting a mild learning curve to a operational/strategic game depicting the Civil War should expect a "phoned-in" game as far as its design is concerned.

On my ACW gamer dream list include a larger, updated WBTS/AGEod hybrid without the wood-and-nail GUI campiness and/or a computerization of the operational-level Great Campaigns of the American Civil War series that allows for both operational and tactical levels of play.  I suppose I'll keep dreaming...... LOL



 

[MikeS369]

I was thinking about buying this game until I saw the price. $34 for a 3 1/2 year old game. I'll stick with FOF and AGeod ACW.

[lparkh]

Well I haven't played your alternatives but this is a very rich and subtle game. The emphasis on leadership, supply, scouting, is pretty good for a study of the Civil War IMHO. That being said the AI can be beaten pretty easily after a few games even on the hard levels. So you'll want human opponents eventually. There is a club that posts here occasionally to find opponents. I found an opponent and the game is very rich Human vs Human.
So if you are keen on the civil war you are missing something by giving this up. But I understand if you think the $$ are too high.

p.s. I only started playing this seriously about a year ago. So I am not a 2008 fanboy lingering