Matrix Games Forums

Looks like another great ACW games. I wonder though would it be fair to characterize this as a simplified version of AACW? What are the main differences between the two may I ask?

Thanks Guys!

On the simplification, that's a cheap statement as i said in the other thread...

Strategic games must always be a compromise between playability and historicity. I am a fan of historicity but if you make everything historical, who would play as CSA?
Another issue, the more detailed and complex the game is, the harder on the micromanagement it gets for human players. Would you like a true full immersion game where you spend 5 hours per turn to perform all the needed operations? Would there be enough players to conform to such difficulty?
Finally (and this is a critical issue) if the game is very complex, would the AI be able to handle it?
Commercial games have to adapt to compromise so I think it's not correct to call any game a simplification because all games are. [8D]

Anyway, i think i am the only one here, at this time, who can point out the differences between AACW and WBTS (and FoF).

I think all 3 games have their weak-spots and good sides and i would recommend anyone to try all 3. Then it would be apparent that they are so different they can't be compared. Why? Because innovation is the base of all marketing! [:D]

Actually the AAR Pyle and Joel did is quite able by itself to answer to your question. The differences between AACW and WBTS are really evident.

How is it a cheap statement? I own AACW and could never get into it because of the overwhelming number of units and tedious micro-management. I loved BOA, but did not enjoy AACW.

A simpler version of AACW is EXACTLY what I am looking for.

Also, saying that three turn-based, strategic-level, civil war computer games can not be compared is just silly. If you don't think they can be compared, what in the world *does* meet your requirements for comparable objects?

I'm not running to anyone's defense here, but at Matrix simplified is generally a bad word [;)]

Funny - everyone has found AACW to be complicated, but I've thought it to be pretty easy to get going on that one.  You get trained for these things though.  My printed copy of hte WitP manual is still in my bathroom . . .

Agreeing with the other poster, I found AACW a game you sit around and admire for its majestic monstrousness but don't play. Though WEGO enabled, the PBEM process appears clunky and non-organic. This one seems more promising in that area.

There is one aspect, however, in which AACW may be better conceived. Their area movement system doesn't suffer from the odd territory that shows only the most slender access from the adjacent area. If I weren't so lazy I'd post a screenshot from one of the WBTS AARs. This may pose strategic distortions, but I could be wrong....

GS

Sorry you feel the term simplified is "Cheap" that was not my intention. Just looking for a definitive answer with other players of AACW.

Will look at the ARA thanks for the idea.

PFORD
I certainly can agree a friend is asking me for the same thing. Looking for a gift for him. Personally I like the complexity of AACW. Quite good with another human player indeed.

Simplification in some wargames is a selling feature!

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I'm not running to anyone's defense here, but at Matrix simplified is generally a bad word [;)]

Haha I found the same with AACE once you put in a hour or two in seems actually fairly straight forward IMHO.

ORIGINAL: ETF
JC
I certainly can agree a friend is asking me for the same thing. Looking for a gift for him. Personally I like the complexity of AACW. Quite good with another human player indeed.

Simplification in some wargames is a selling feature!

ORIGINAL: ETF

Haha I found the same with AACE once you put in a hour or two in seems actually fairly straight forward IMHO.

The mechanics in AACW aren't the problem, it's the crushing management overload. Especially recruiting, HQ organization and supply. And TWBTS doesn't appear to be lacking in depth.

I am curious how it compares to GGW@W, since they're the same engine. I've only played the demo of that one, but it looks like WBTS has a lot more to fiddle with than that one.

I truly wish to answer that question and i know i am the only one who can but the point is that what is hard to me can be easy to someone else. (relativity of complex/easy judgement)
Besides, It's hard to judge then with someone else's parameters (Jamey's in this case) and i should say something like : you found AACW hard then you'd find WBTS simple/complex. That's not how it works...everything is subjective and i can judge with my judgement not with someone else's. [:)]
It took me 6 months to learn how to play AACW...now it's been a year and i'm still learning, just like everyone else. Jamey you may wish to consult the excellent 101 Runyan posted as i'm sure it will help you: http://www.ageod.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6823

Pyle luckily volounteered to answer to all questions (including mine) arising from the WBTS AAR here: tm.asp?m=1585188&mpage=1&key=

On a single user's request for clearing differences between the 2 games i also answered here (be advised it's a minimal list of differences): fb.asp?m=1810914

If i had to make an example of a complex game, i would definitely name WiF. World in Flames is certainly the hardest game i ever played in my life and If the AI in WiF (being developed as we speak) is a good one, then i honestly think the DEVs building it are wasting their time here and should apply for NASA.

I have asked for permission to produce a video AAR to Joel and i will do it in my first PBEM which should have started this morning but which didnt because rhj forgot to patch to the latest build [:)]
You will definitely all know more tomorrow.