Matrix Games Forums

So, I'm a first timer, really... never played all that many wargames. My collection basically includes stuff like Panzer Tactics DS, Daisenryaku VII Exceed, Fantasy Wars (by 1C company, plays like Fantasy General), and that's about it. So now I'm interested in playing some civil war stuff, and I'm not really sure which would be the best. I've got demos of both American Civil War and Birth of America, so I know how the Civil War version works, I think the John Tiller compilation would be cool, but I'm not sure whether American Civil War or War Between the States would be better. Anyone have any clear cut preferences?

Since you are new to this type of wargaming in general and Civil War games in particular, get WBTS. The micromanagement in AACW and FoF will kill you.

It depends on what suits/interests you best. I'm interested in hewing more closely to history, I like to game/simulate actual historical campaigns and battles, so the JT games (and their HPS offspring) are more to my liking. By contrast, the more high-level strategy, free-wheeling, "fantasy" type games--AACW, Fof, WBTS--are less to my liking.

Also, ask yourself: In addition to combat, do I want to deal with politics, economies, army recruitment, force reorganization, etc.? Or do I "just" want to order forces around and fight? If the former, choose any of the strategic-level AACW, FoF, WBTS. If the latter, choose the JT BS & HPS tactical(/operational) games.

It's actually a very complicated question. Ultimately, you must try them all, then decide for yourself: (for whatever reason), am I having fun?

Oh boy. "Fantasy" game?

Just because the focus of a game is strategy or grande strategy does not may it a "fantasy" game. It is just as much a valid simulation of a campaign or a war as any game whose scope is limited to a single battle. They all ask "what if" at some level. They all put you in control of the fight within the confines of the real commander(s) -- whether that be Lee at Gettysburg or Lincoln for the entire war.

That was my first reaction. My second had something do to with visualizing Orcs at Shiloh....

P

ORIGINAL: tran505
Oh boy. "Fantasy" game?

Um, that's why I put it in quotes.

Arguably, in a multi-year, strategic-level game, you are going to deviate much more widely from actual history than you will in a game devoted to a battle at a single time and place.

That's what I meant by "fantasy".

(sheesh, war gaming political correctness? ...)

Druswid, I agree with TGB, WBTS is a very good ACW grand strategy game. I like
it more each day now, as I learn the ins and outs of it, quickly becoming my favorite. AACW is very good also,
but moves along much slower. If you want to try a very good tactical ACW game try Take Command 2nd Manassas by Mad Minute Games. It is excellent. Mike

ORIGINAL: bertoArguably, in a multi-year, strategic-level game, you are going to deviate much more widely from actual history than you will in a game devoted to a battle at a single time and place.

Yeah....but I guess that's the fascination of a strategic level game for me. It's fun to win as Lee in a faithful tactical recreation of Gettysburg, but you never get to see the follow-up. In a grand strategic level game you get to find out where things go from there. Or as the Union you get to see if you could do better than was done historically. Of course it's only a game and with all the variables we'll never know the path history could have taken for sure, but it's a close as we'll ever get. Just my 2 cents. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Bo Rearguard

ORIGINAL: bertoArguably, in a multi-year, strategic-level game, you are going to deviate much more widely from actual history than you will in a game devoted to a battle at a single time and place.

... Of course it's only a game and with all the variables we'll never know the path history could have taken for sure, but it's a close as we'll ever get...]

We won't get very close at all if, summing all its parts, the multi-year strategic level game is so flawed as to be quite implausible. I'm not saying that WBTS (or AACW or FoF, for that matter) fails in this respect. But it places a very heavy burden on the game designers to get it "right", or "nearly" so. If they haven't gotten in "right", it becomes "fantastical" to me, and I quickly lose interest. (And return to the much less ambitious, intrinsically closer to history, tactical games/simulations.)

Berto --

I think it safe to say that we all have a passion for history and our hobby, and are just happy as all-get-out that we have a company like Matrix that helps us realize our delusions of grandeur -- at whatever scale suits us.

Good gaming. Good fun. Good friends too.

P

ORIGINAL: tran505
I think it safe to say that we all have a passion for history and our hobby, and are just happy as all-get-out that we have a company like Matrix that helps us realize our delusions of grandeur -- at whatever scale suits us.

That's probably true for most of us. But the (to me) sad fact is that many gamers are looking for a Risk-like game where--who cares about history?--they just want to World Conquest, for example. (I'm not saying that anyone here present fits that category!)

Stealing a line from Lincoln: You can please some of the gamers all of the time, and all of the gamers some of the time, but you can't please all of the gamers all of the time, and in every way. Such is war gaming ... and life ...

This game has a very rare approach to the Strategic/Operational level wargame.
 
The units of action are produced and deployed strategically. The leadership is the key element to the line of battle each player creates in the battle space. This part of the game is almost risk free. Remember almost.
 
Operationally, it becomes poker. The leaders become the heartbreakers and lifetakers as inititive is the core to fulfillment of dreams. Scouting, Naval bombardment, logistics all lead to the point of impact.
 
Tactically there is little control. You can't tell the 2nd NY to fire on the 4th Alabama. Order General Bragg to grab the high ground, General Burnside to take the bridge. That is well and fine. Other wargames out there can do that job and it means more games to choose from.
 
GGWBtS, is a great what-if simulation. Although.... a scenario for "Guns of the South", could be considered sci-fi? hehe

I would love to sit down with you and discuss this very point with you but (SIGH) this is not the place or time. You have a valid statement in what you say and many follow you but it is not the ONLY point of view. As a friend of mine said quoting some fqmous person "difference of opinion is what makes horse races and ball games"
We all have something that they did not have back then or will future generations have when they look at our history.....hind sight. Why did Grant or Lee or whoever you choose do what they did? It was there judgment of what was best at that moment.
What ever level you play be it Grand strategy down to Tactical its taking the historical situation with full knowledge of what happened and get a chance to play with history. We look at ordering Picket to charge Cemetery Ridge as being stupid bordering on insane. A good game allows you to repeat the historical outcomes or use that wonderful hind sight to do something different.
IN the end just as we can't know what will happen in the next few minutes,days, weeks or whatever, those in the past could not know either. A good simulation game regardless of the level puts you into the situation and lets you do what you will. It is not possible to repeat the past in a game but it is great to try or to change things. For me a good grand Strategy Game is more enjoyable than a tactical level. I think that just because you prefer on over the other does not mean that one deviates from history or gives you more chances to change or alter history. It just means that you like to play at different levels of involvement. If you take the three Grand strategy games we now have each presents history in different ways and each has its followers and detractors.

Madgamer

berto, please don't take offense here, but if you want history read a book. If you want a game then play a game.

Even Tiller games become a-historical within their scope the first time a chit/unit moves not exactly as it did historically. Multiply X many chits/units for X many turns and you have your 'Fantasy' game.

What I want is a fun game that follows as closely to what happened as possible while allowing things that were plausible .

As to the knowledge of said gamers, I have met so many grogs that play these types of games that could tell you the complete ins and outs of things from a Quadriga to a F-35 Lightning II.....and all points in between.

mo reb

Edit: I re-read this thread and berto actually stated some points that I missed. I agree with you though that with grand strategy it is easier to stray from reality than with a game that has limited choices as you play.

Happy gaming

I think we've beaten up on poor 'ole berto enough guys. He passes the hexagon test in my estimation....

- P

I think people don't understand what is meant when someone says a game is "historical".

That doesn't mean the game will go exactly the way history went for whatever it is portraying. It means that the game, to whatever degree and level of abstraction the designer has chosen, operates within the historical set of bounds for what was *possible*.

People who like their wargames to be historical do not want it to play out just like history, they jsut want the set of options to map to some historically valid set of options, and the results to be within the bounds of what was historically reasonable. That may not at all be what actually happened - one can argue, in fact, that what DID happen was actually unlikely.

If the South starts sailing Iowa class battleship out of Charleston, that isn't very historical. It might be fun, but that is a different issue. If the Virginia sinks the Monitor, and breaks the blockade of the James river, that may not have happened, but it certainly could have happened.

now, the real challenge for a game designer is making a game both fun AND historical. There is a reason fantasy and sci-fi is o popular - you aren't constrained by what actually happened, so you get to indulge the "fun" part, since there is not historical part to constrain you.

So, to sum up, I reject the idea that there is this binary choice between wanting history or playing a game. If that were really the case, I would not be playing hsitorically based wargames, which I find consistently a hell of a lot more fun than fantasy/sci-fi based wargames. Although those can be fun as well...

ORIGINAL: Berkut
I think people don't understand what is meant when someone says a game is "historical".

...

So, to sum up, I reject the idea that there is this binary choice between wanting history or playing a game. If that were really the case, I would not be playing hsitorically based wargames, which I find consistently a hell of a lot more fun than fantasy/sci-fi based wargames. Although those can be fun as well...

+1

I don't know why, I find a game more engaging if I am somehow emotionally attached to the subject matter, if it "means something" to me personally. History has deep meaning for me. Fantasy/sci-fi don't. Fantasy/sci-fi engage my mind. History engages both mind and heart. Real stories of real people, "realistic" games about "real" peoples, times, and places--those I can relate to. There's nothing right or wrong about it; it's just me.